The Monken Hadley Church building looks likely to be rebuilt as the costs of restoration have escalated, reports Grace Howarth, Local Democracy Reporter

Plans to demolish and rebuild a deteriorating church hall in Barnet have moved one step closer.

At a planning committee yesterday (Wednesday 9th) councillors voted in favour of a proposal to demolish and rebuild the hall at Monken Hadley Church despite officers recommending the scheme for refusal.

The proposal will now go to the next planning committee for a final decision, giving committee members a chance to add conditions and objectors, who may not have attended yesterday’s meeting due to the assumption the plan would be refused, a chance to speak.

Chair Claire Farrier said the committee favoured the plans because the benefit of a rebuild outweighed the “possible minor harm” of demolition. The plan also guaranteed the hall’s long-term “sustainability” and the design fitted-in with the local area.

On the reasons to refuse, officer Heidi Euzger said: “The proposed replacement would result in substantial harm to a non-designated heritage asset, a high level of harm to the setting of a Grade 2* listed building and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area.”

The owner, the Parish Church Committee of Monken Hadley, initially had plans to restore the building, which included adding an extension.

However, following the discovery the hall stood on ‘made ground’ which can be known to cause structural problems, including movement, restoration costs shot up.

Architect and planning consultant Alan Cox explained: “Contractors said they couldn’t guarantee the cost of the work wouldn’t go up [during restoration] because they’re trying to support the existing structure, while building a new structure in it, and they couldn’t guarantee that with the ‘made ground’ it’s on [the hall] wouldn’t continue to move.”

Plans to replace Monken Hadley Church Hall (credit – Architects and planning consultants Alan Cox Associates)

Alan said this was the reason the church took the “drastic decision” to apply to rebuild despite the fact they knew the planning authority “wouldn’t support it”.

On the cost of restoration versus rebuild, councillor Emma Whysall, who supported rebuilding, said: “The community has raised about £700,000 to cover the rebuild and I understand the cost of restoration is approaching double that.”

She added: “We talk about losing a heritage building but this building has already been lost due to the condition it currently is in.

“I’m unsure how harm is caused by being able to look from a new church hall onto the Grade 2-listed church and enjoy that outlook. In fact I think it enhances the area and its ability to enjoy the beauty of this church.

“The new building will be a community asset with much local support, as you can see in the papers there’s 32 letters of support from the building.”

Both Alan and Cllr Whysall highlighted that restoration would not provide an opportunity to make the building accessible but demolition and rebuilding it would.

Alan added the church had sought an assessment from heritage consultants, including the charity English Heritage, which had said the current building possessed “low architectural and artistic interest and low historic interest”.

He said: “The heritage value of the building has been severely compromised by substantial and invasive alterations made throughout its lifetime which have removed all evidence of any 18th and 19th Century uses including as a stable or residential dwelling.”

However, Heidi reiterated the officers had not been provided “sufficient evidence” as to why the existing building could not be restored.

Following discussion, five members voted against the refusal, meaning they were in favour of the application going ahead, and one member voted for refusal.

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.