The authority has clarified that it is not currently in talks with the club about possible locations in the borough after Barry Rawlings said last week that “three or four sites have been mentioned” reports David Floyd

A group of football supporters in shirts, with banners, gathering outside Hendon Town Hall — Barnet FC supporters gather outside Hendon Town Hall on Monday – (Credit – Leïla Davaud)

Barnet Council’s position on Barnet Football Club’s stadium plans was clarified this afternoon as the authority appeared to backtrack on claims that it had offered the club alternative sites for a new ground.

The council’s strategic planning committee rejected the club’s plans for a 7,000 capacity stadium on Barnet Playing Fields, close to its former Underhill home, at a meeting on Monday (14th July).

However, at a full council meeting last Tuesday (8th July), the authority’s Labour leader Barry Rawlings had told councillors that the council had offered the club several alternative locations in the borough where it could consider building a stadium.

In an exchange with Conservative councillor David Longstaff, Cllr Rawlings confirmed that the council was opposed to the Barnet Playing Fields plans but, when asked: “What would your preferred site be for Barnet FC within Barnet borough?”, he responded: “I can’t decide where Barnet Football Club are going to put in a planning application. All that I will say is that three or four sites have been mentioned to them and we’re waiting for a response.”

The exchange was referred to in Monday’s planning committee meeting, when a Conservative committee member, Cllr Joshua Conway, asked Iain Botterill from the Bring Barnet Back campaign whether he would like to comment on the claims.

The campaigner responded: “It’s nonsense. Cllr Rawlings has not named those sites.”

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

Now, the council has confirmed that the impression given by the leader that there had been recent discussions with the club about alternative sites was incorrect.

“We have never offered Barnet FC alternative sites”

Responding to questions from Barnet Post: “Which sites in the borough have been offered to Barnet Football Club as alternative sites for a stadium?” and “Has the council now received a response from the club – if so, what was it?” a Barnet Council spokesperson said:
“We have never offered Barnet FC alternative sites, rather, following an initial discussion with the club, we committed to exploring potential locations that could be considered further by them.

“The club conducted its own assessment of these options and chose to proceed with a planning application for Barnet Playing Fields.

“We have consistently stated that we would welcome Barnet FC back to the borough, provided a suitable site can be identified.”

Barnet Post understands that when Cllr Rawlings talked about alternative sites being mentioned to the club, he was referring to discussions between officers and the club several years ago before the club decided to move forward with its Barnet Playing Fields plans, which it called ‘New Underhill’.

Officers had indicated at the time that those plans were not likely to be approved for the reasons that they were ultimately not approved – that they involved building on Green Belt land and playing fields – and had encouraged the club to consider several other sites.

The club made its own assessment of those alternative sites and chose to pursue the New Underhill plans that the committee has now refused.

The apparent confusion provoked a strong reaction from Conservative opposition leader Peter Zinkin.

“What was the council leader doing?”

Cllr Zinkin said of the leader’s response at the 8th July meeting: “We do not understand how this is remotely consistent with the statement the council has just issued, one of these must be incorrect.

“The question of whether a site should be found within Barnet for Barnet Football Club has been a controversial issue for a number of years. The leader must have been fully aware of this when he authorised the answer to a question about the site of Barnet Football Club and chose to introduce, in his answer, the question of alternative sites.

“The mention of alternative sites has the potential to cause enormous anxiety to those who live near to where those sites might be and therefore, it was entirely appropriate to ask him a question about those alternative sites. He chose to respond as noted above.

“This was an extremely important topic for the council meeting, and therefore, there is absolutely no excuse of any sort for the answer to the obvious follow-on question, to have been either incorrect or misleading. In the council’s own planning paper, paragraph 7.37, it clearly stated that there are no alternative sites under consideration.

“We have to ask the question, what was the council leader doing when he answered the question at full council?

“Even more, as has been noted on a number of occasions, this council increasingly treats the residents of Barnet with contempt. The statement by the council on this subject fails to clarify the earlier statements and makes no reference to why the council leader gave the answer he did.”

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.