While Barnet Council’s strategic planning committee voted as expected against the club’s proposals for a new ground, there was confusion over the council leader’s claim that the club had been offered alternative sites reports David Floyd

Barnet fans gathering outside the town hall before tonight’s meeting (Credit – Leïla Davaud)

A disappointed Barnet fan left the room shouting “elections in May” after the football club’s bid to return to Underhill was rejected by councillors earlier tonight.

Barnet Council’s strategic planning committee voted to refuse the club’s bid to build a new 7,000 capacity stadium on Barnet Playing Fields, close to the site of their old Underhill home.

It was standing room only in the committee room, as supporters of the new stadium from the Bring Barnet Back campaign, were joined by opponents from the Save Barnet Playing Fields group, each clapping and cheering points made in favour of their side, despite repeated requests from committee chair Cllr Nigel Young not to do so.

However, the fact that council officers had strongly recommended the refusal of the bid, meant it had a very low chance of success.

The strong divisions created by the bid were highlighted by the fact that the Labour two councillors for Underhill, Tim Roberts and Zahra Beg, addressed the meeting on opposite sides of the debate.

Cllr Roberts told the meeting: “Nobody would expect Tottenham Hotspur to play at Arsenal stadium, Barnet Council should not be telling Barnet FC to play in Harrow” before adding: “We need to make football come home – and that should start here at the strategic planning committee meeting.”

However, his ward colleague Cllr Beg took a very different position saying of the playing fields: “They are the beating heart of Underhill and once gone we will not get them back” and adding: ““It would be great to have Barnet Football Club back in the borough but this is not the right venue.”

For the campaign groups, Robert Verrill of Save Barnet Playing Fields told the meeting: “For a century, Barnet Playing Fields has been a cornerstone of our community.”

Explaining that the group had gone door-to-door talking to local residents and finding strong opposition to the plans, he said: “The important thing about this community is that its main asset is the local park – not a stadium in the middle of the park.”

Iain Botterill of Bring Barnet Back cited the wider benefits the proposed new facilities would offer the local community saying: “This isn’t just a stadium, it’s a belief about what Barnet can be”

He also called on the committee to help the club – which claims to be losing £1million a year since moving away to The Hive in Harrow in 2013 – improve its sustainability adding: “Councillors, you are not to blame for Barnet’s financial position but you are responsible for what happens next.”

In response to a question from a committee member, Councillor Joshua Conway, on whether he would like to comment on claims made by council leader Barry Rawlings at last week’s council meeting that the club had been offered “three or four” alternative sites, Iain said: “It’s nonsense. Cllr Rawlings has not named those sites.”

He added: “What are the sites? Name them.”

As committee members discussed their positions in the run up to the vote, most expressed general support for the club returning to the borough, while indicating their inclination to oppose the plans based on the key reasons cited by officers: “Inappropriate development within the green belt” and “Loss of public open space and loss of Playing Fields”.

However, Cllr Conway and another Conservative councillor, Shuey Gordon, felt that the lack of clarity about alternative sites for the club meant they were not able to assess whether the special circumstances applied that justify development on Green Belt land.

Cllr Gordon called for a vote to defer the bid. He said: “We can’t possibly understand the nature of the special circumstances, until we understand the options the club has.”

While Cllr Conway outlined his dilemma noting: “The council is saying there are alternative sites and the applicant is saying there aren’t.”

He subsequently asked if the committee could make a request for the list of alternative sights mentioned by Cllr Rawlings last week to be made available to the committee.

When the application was put to a vote, Cllrs Gordon and Conway abstained, while all other councillors voted to refuse, and the application was refused.

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.