Moxon One previously won permission for the scheme but now wants to remove all of its affordable housing, reports Grace Howarth, Local Democracy Reporter

Designs for the Moxon One development in High Barnet (credit Claridge Architects)

Councillors have expressed their concerns about a controversial High Barnet development ahead of a planning appeal due to be heard later this year.

Objections to the redevelopment of Intec House, a seven-storey, 98-home scheme at the end of Moxon Street, were heard during a Barnet Council strategic planning committee on Wednesday (17th).

Residents of South Close, a neighbouring road, raised concerns about overlooking, how out-of-character the scheme was for the area, and how previous committee proceedings had been conducted.

The site is currently home to a three-storey building, mainly used as office space, with a warehouse space at the rear. The neighbouring building, Fortune House, has been approved for redevelopment by the same developers.

The original plans for Intec House were approved in November 2023, and at the time comprised a 35% allocation of affordable housing.

However, an amended proposal was debated in April which increased the number of homes from 92 to 98 but removed all of its affordable housing. Following this debate, the decision to grant or reject the scheme was deferred.

Developer Moxon One has appealed this decision on grounds of “non-determination”, meaning it will now be heard by an independent planning inspector later this year.

Committee chair Nigel Young explained that the committee would not approve or reject the proposal at the meeting but must decide what it would be “minded to do” so this position could be put forward to the inspector during the appeal hearing.

He said: “The basis on what the committee decides will be the basis on which officers will go to the planning inspector.”

Resident Darren Taylor said: “It is insulting that the council would even consider a meagre £75,000 contribution at the expense of removing 35% affordable homes from the scheme.”

He said the planning officers’ handling of the previous committee meeting, which took place in April, and where the decision to defer the application was made, was “contrived and manipulated”.

Darren added that the committee had acted in an “undemocratic manner” and this was done to enable “another chance to get the outcome the officer and the legal advisor wanted”.

Following two hours of deliberation, Cllr Young, summed up the main reasons the council would advise refusal, saying that “the harm was not outweighed by the benefits”.

There was also a “lack of detail” on how the scheme would be deliverable, “maximum affordable housing had not been secured” and there were concerns over density.

Overshadowing was also an issue and the proposal did not “respect the character of the surrounding”.

Councillors voted to express support for refusing the plans on these grounds, with eight in favour and one against. The appeal will take place in autumn.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else. £84 annual supporters get a print copy by post and a digital copy of each month's before anyone else.