Leïla Davaud reports from a meeting of residents challenging Regal’s North Finchley redevelopment

A large number of people sitting on rows of chairs in a church hall — Attendees at last night’s meeting (Credit – JMA Photography)

As the doors to St Barnabas Church Hall opened, rows and rows of seats were waiting to be filled. People in campaign group Our North Finchley’s white t-shirts were placing leaflets, testing microphones, and making sure everything was set. For a non-political community event, the scene was worthy of a rally.

“More than 200 people signed up to join us tonight”, announces Charli Thompson from the residents’ campaign. And the community didn’t miss a beat. As she climbs on stage, the hall is full of expectant faces.

“We are here tonight because North Finchley is changing, but the question is: Who is it changing for?” For this, a round of applause. “We are here to have our voice heard. This is your community, your campaign and your chance to have a say in what comes next.”

“We are here to have our voice heard”

Central to the discussion is developer Regal’s ambitions for North Finchley, targeting three main sites. The Town Centre Masterplan would demolish much of the current Tally Ho Triangle and replace it with 855 homes and retail establishments. For the Great North Leisure Park (GNLP), Regal proposes replacing the Vue cinema, Hollywood Bowl, and nearby restaurants with a dense residential scheme while reducing the size of Finchley Lido. The Lodge Lane Car Park site already has approval for 98 flats, a small cinema, and a bowling venue.

“But this is our town centre, not theirs,” reminded Michael Levitsky, who has been leading Our North Finchley’s investigative work. “The community needs to be at the table to show that we care, that we vote, and that our taxes pay the planners’ salaries.”

He highlighted key objections: a lack of consultation and a shortage of family-sized homes in favour of one-bedroom flats. His concerns echoed through the room when a member of the public asked: “How is it possible that the council decided to continue with these plans without considering the need for affordable family homes for people like me and my husband, who earn a decent salary and still can’t afford a flat or a house to raise our children here?”

The fate of the leisure park proved particularly contentious. Regal’s plan involves demolishing the existing GNLP and building a replacement but critics say the proposed facility falls short. “Why don’t we just keep and refurbish the existing Leisure Centre for 10 more years and save £30 million?” Levitsky asked the room. He urged that “the GLA should have the courage to reject the proposal”.

On this particular site, Jo Fang asked: “I grew up in Barnet and also had my fair share of birthday parties in Hollywood Bowl. With the plans, both of those spaces would be demolished to reach the target housing numbers. I understand that as a local councillor, you’re limited in your powers but what are some of the levers that you can pull to make sure that Barnet isn’t a place where target comes before good strategy?”

“Would I do it the way it’s being done? No, I wouldn’t”

To this, guest speaker Councillor Ross Houston answered: “I’m not happy with the current proposals but we do have a challenge in terms of delivering housing. Some of this is about making compromises in a market that is not working well. Would I do it the way it’s being done? No, I wouldn’t. But we inherited a situation.”

MP for Finchley and Golders Green, Sarah Sackman, used the event to restate her disapproval of Regal’s plans and backing of North Finchley’s community. “The proposals demonstrate a lack of understanding of North Finchley, a lack of sensitivity to local history, and as it stands, the master plan and the proposals for Tally Ho are something I will not support. Regal has a choice: they can be a responsible developer or they can be an irresponsible developer. They can stick to those planning conditions, or they can breach them. My job in this is to work hand in glove with you, speak to the right people above me and to hold the developers to account.”

Which is exactly what Amy Fox intends to do. Mother of a boy at Northside Primary School since reception, she laments: “His last two years of primary school are going to be spent next to a giant construction site. I have grave concerns regarding dust pollution, particularly for children with respiratory conditions. I’m concerned about the noise day in, day out as children study, try to learn, sit exams… We also have a high number of pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) who are very sensitive to noise. All of this, for luxury apartments on Lodge Lane that we can’t afford?”

As the discussion drew to a close, planning committee member Josh Mastin-Lee, a Conservative councillor who voted against Lodge Lane’s plan, offered a rare note of optimism. “It’s quite rare, with planning, to feel hopeful about things,” he admitted. “But seeing people from different political backgrounds come together gives me some of that hope. Developers aren’t purely the enemy; we need them to build homes, but they must do so in harmony with our objectives. Low ambition is our greatest enemy. Let’s bring it on.”

Zoe Garbett, London Assembly member for the Green Party, noted: “This could have the potential for setting a precedent across the city as well. This is important to you, but I think this is important to London.” Affirming that the debate reaches beyond Barnet, which has already seen its fair share of development plans in the last few years.

After more than two hours of discussion, every speaker agreed that the proposed rate of affordable housing in the new development is “not good enough.” They acknowledged the urgency of the housing crisis and the need for affordable homes alongside the need for North Finchley’s regeneration. However, the debate still lies in how it is delivered and who it truly serves. Our North Finchley emphasised it is “only starting” the campaign.

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.