Andrew Dismore

Objection to planning application H/01134/14

 

Barnet Cemetery and Memorial Gardens Milespit Hill NW7 2RR

 

Request to speak at Planning Committee

 

I wish to object to this planning application and to speak to my objections at the Planning Committee.

 

Background

The recent history of this land is relevant and controversial. It was originally owned by Westminster Council, and was sold with the cemetery itself and the ancillary buildings for 5p, in the notorious “sale of the cemeteries” scandal by Dame Shirley Porter, then leader of Westminster City Council, in the 1980s. The cemetery was badly neglected by its new owners to the extent that the vigorous campaign by the Westminster Association of Relatives ( “WAR”) forced the council to buy back the cemetery ( and two others elsewhere) for several million pounds, obviously with Westminster sustaining a huge loss. However, the asset strippers won out: they kept this land (which was not then used for anything) the lodge which was converted to a residential dwelling, and other buildings.

Co-incidentally, I was a Councillor in Westminster throughout this time and as Labour spokesperson on the issue remember the background very well.

Barnet Council has already agreed, wrongly in my view, that the land has an established use as a cemetery. This is even though there are no graves in it and it has not been used commercially for at least 60 years for any purpose: its last known use was as a pig farm before WW2- indeed there is an old pig shed still on the land, of historic  and architectural interest. The land is now a haven for wildlife, including for example muntjac deer.

 

 

The multi faith mausoleum and  columbaria

This is not a cemetery use. The OED defines a cemetery as “a large burial ground, especially one not in a churchyard”.

The OED defines a mausoleum as “a stately or impressive building housing a tomb or group of tombs”.

The OED defines a columbarium as “a room or building with niches for funeral urns to be stored”. (Columbaria is the plural, so the application envisages more than one).

The only usage that the proposed development has in common with a cemetery is that it is a means of holding  the remains of deceased people. A cemetery involves  burial in the ground, with a tombstone or similar funerary monument. This  development consists of large buildings above ground which are not in keeping with the neighbouring Westminster Council owned Mill Hill Cemetery.

The size and scale of the proposed development is not suitable in the Green Belt. Whilst a traditional cemetery use (similar to the neighbouring cemetery) may be seen to be a permissible Green Belt use, ( but not based on established  use grounds) the construction of these buildings cannot be. They will be intrusive and visible from neighbouring properties  in Milespit Hill , Woodcote Avenue and given the geography of Mill Hill and the proposed location  of the buildings towards the top of the site, probably further afield too.

It seems likely that the construction would also involve the removal of broadleaf tress subject to TPOs.

Such buildings  are clearly contrary to Barnet and GLA Green Belt policy and cannot be permitted.

Car park

The application includes provision for a 43 space car park on the border of the site parallel with Milespit Hill.

A similar application for a car park on the land to the rear of the next door property,   the Mount School, was rejected by Barnet Council as contrary to Green Belt policy.

If a less obtrusive car park (at the rear and masked by the school buildings was rejected) then following this precedent a more obtrusive and visible car park should also be rejected on the same grounds.

Moreover, the construction of the car park will involve the destruction of a number of broad leaf woodland trees that are protected by TPOs. The car park plan should be rejected on these grounds too.

 

Access  and the access road

The terms of access through  the existing cemetery  permitted under the sale agreement by Westminster Council are:

“Access will be restricted to only being during the cemetery’s normal opening hours, along a defined route, and only for pedestrians, private motor cars and such commercial vehicles as are reasonably required for the maintenance and upkeep of a burial ground. Access will not be allowed for construction lorries or similar heavy goods vehicles that may damage the cemetery roads or pathways.”

It can be seen that as the proposed use is not as a burial ground, access may well not be permitted by Westminster under this agreement for the mausoleum and columbaria, as they are buildings, not a burial ground.

In any event, construction traffic for these buildings would not be permitted at all.

The proposed new access road involves opening a way used by the former pig farm onto Milespit Hill that has been closed since before the Second World War.

It also consists of a thoroughfare winding through the land, I understand, to be  based on the concept  of a one way system with entrance through the existing cemetery and exit direct onto  Milespit Hill, from the car park referred to above.

The extent of the hard surfacing of the roadway is not in keeping with Green Belt policy and should be refused on those grounds alone.

The access for construction would presumably have to be through the proposed exit on Milespit Hill. Milespit Hill is a residential and almost country road in parts that is not suitable for heavy construction vehicles.

The road is heavily used by private vehicles including school traffic to both the Mount School and nearby Mill Hill School on the Ridgeway, as well as the preparatory school (Belmont) and the two primary schools (St Paul’s and St Vincent’s). The additional traffic for both construction vehicles and from users of the proposed buildings would significantly add to congestion.

The proposed entrance onto Milespit Hill is masked by trees, buses and foliage on the ‘waste of the manor’ land, and would be  a blind exit onto what is a busy and quite fast road, constituting a road safety hazard.

The access road and entrance should not be permitted on these grounds.

Planning conditions

I do not believe that these objections can be overcome by the use of planning conditions. Moreover, even if conditions were imposed, there is no guarantee that the developers would observe them. They are already responsible for large fly tip on ‘waste of the manor’ land on Milespit Hill, consisting of piles of wood, cuttings and other debris from land clearance work they have already done. This fly tip has been there for many months.

Andrew Dismore AM

London Assembly member for Barnet and Camden

79 the Burroughs

London NW4 4AX