We asked, you said, we did

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked for your views on our proposed Meads and Lyndhurst Park Flood Alleviation Scheme.

The proposed scheme aims to:

• reduce flood risk to properties within the Silk Stream catchment by increasing the storage of water within the open space
• create new habitats for wildlife
• deliver biodiversity, environmental and amenity enhancements to the park and its users.

You said

We wrote to 1409 residents and businesses inviting them to have their say on our proposals. We received 6 responses

50% of respondents strongly supported our proposals, with no one strongly opposing them.

21 residents also attended a Community Engagement event hosted by our Action for Silk Stream partner, Thames21. Residents shared their:

• Suggestions on the placement of our proposed detention basins / Wetlands
• Concerns around fly tipping
• Views on re-introducing a play area
• Suggestions on the trees, plants and other vegetation that we should introduce

We did

We have considered all the feedback received and final designs are now being developed ahead of progressing with a tender process for construction. The scheme is expected to go out to tender in Autumn 2025.

Read more about the consultation

We asked

We asked how we could improve Early Help, mental health and well being services for children and young people in Barnet.

You said

Three people responded to the survey and said they had not accessed or did not know how to access these services

We did

We are integrating our Early Help and Clinical mental health and well being services. Alongside this, we are developing a model that will allow children and young people to be better informed about our services and able to access them more readily.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) before finalising the document.

You said

12 responses were received, and the responses have been summarised, responded to, and changes made to the document where appropriate. The main issues, arising from the consultation and the Council’s response to them broadly centred around the following matters:

• further details of the evidence base, and methodology applied to justify employment and training obligations
• the requirement to secure and provide a large number or all of the financial obligations within the SPD (particularly the full set of employment and training obligations) may compromise the viability and deliverability of development
• with reference to Affordable Housing, clarification is sought within the SPD as to whether fast-track schemes which deliver 35% affordable housing are also subject to an early-stage viability review. The SPD should acknowledge the Portfolio approach towards affordable housing provision on public land for Purpose Build Student Accommodation and Build to Rent Schemes
• further details should be provided within the SPD on the Councils transport infrastructure projects envisaged to come forward via S106 planning obligations
• health contributions are covered under the CIL Regulations and to secure further financial obligations towards healthcare provision under S106 Agreements may result in “double counting” with the CIL provision
• clarification sought that financial contributions towards open space apply to major and large-scale developments only
• financial contribution towards maintenance for of offsite play space may be unnecessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
• the SPD seeks to secure three separate financial obligations towards Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG); Urban Green Factor (UGF); on the grounds that it unduly onerous on developers to provide, and may compromise viability and deliverability of schemes
• a respondent recommends that additional obligations on water quality and management should be added to the final SPD.
• the SPD should consider whether it’s the Planning Obligations SPD could be used as a mechanism to implement Local Plan policy and proposals relating to the conservation of the historic environment.

We did

In accordance with Part 5 (the Regulation 18(4(b) of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, a Statement (presented in table format) setting out a summary of all the representations received and the Council’s proposed response to them

The representations received have been summarised, responded to, and changes were identified in the Consultation Statement and made to the final Planning Obligations SPD. A number of points raised in the consultation submissions merit changes to the SPD in order to provide greater clarity on some of the planning obligations.

The adopted Planning Obligations SPD, and a detailed Consultation Statement are available to view on the council’s website:

• Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
• Consultation Statement

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed new playground at Watling Park.

You said

We received 61 responses to the online questionnaire and a direct email. The key themes from the public consultation were:

• 75% of respondents liked what was proposed for the new playground.
• Request to have more benches and picnic tables.
• Request for more climbing elements in the play equipment.
• Request to cater for older children and adults.
• Request for a sand pit.

We did

The order has been placed for the new playground, and it will be installed in summer 2025.

An additional bench has been included in the design, so there will be three benches in total. The picnic table will now be a large wheelchair accessible picnic table that can seat more people.

There is a wide range of climbing equipment in the design with banister bars and a tower net, although this was not clearly visible from the images, so we have not added any more climbing equipment.

The playground is for children, so we have not added any more equipment for older people. A new outdoor gym will also be installed in Watling Park in summer 2025, which older children and adults can use.

We will not be providing a sand pit, as the council has no funding to maintain a sand pit. Sand pits require regular raking and topping up of sand. There is a sand pit at Market Place playground which was installed as a pilot project in September 2024. This is being maintained, and we are monitoring the time and cost of this work, before making any decisions on new sand features.

Read more about this consultation

• 91% of respondents supported the principle of additional green space at Brent Cross Town

• 82% agreed with the proposed tree planting

• 77% agreed that the proposed path connecting Claremont Green to Brent Terrace should be pedestrian only

• Suggestions were most frequently made for the park to be consistently maintained and amenities such as outdoor seating, gym equipment and seasonal landscaping to be improved.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed changes to the Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme in 2025/26.

You said

We received 418 responses to the statutory consultation during the seven-week period. Responses were mainly received from residents (95.05%), and also received from the Greater London Authority, Chipping Barnet Foodbank and Citizens Advice Bureau.

Key findings on the overall proposal were:

• three quarters of respondents disagree (75.07%, 277 out of 369 respondents) with the council’s proposed CTS Scheme for 2025/26 (64.50%, 238 out of 369 respondents strongly disagree, and 10.57%, 39 out of 369 respondents tend to disagree)
• a minority agree (12.74%, 47 out of 369 respondents) with the council’s proposed CTS Scheme for 2025/26 (5.42%, 20 out of 369 strongly agree, and 7.32%, 27 out of 369 respondents tend to agree)
• The remainder were either neutral (9.21 %, 31 out of 369 respondents) or said they did not know or were not sure (2.98%, 11 out of 369 respondents).

We did

The feedback in the consultation was considered, however, due to the need to make a saving within the council a balanced approach was required.

At the Cabinet meeting on 18 February 2025 it was decided to make the changes proposed within the consultation, this included the maximum award of Council Tax Support for working-age residents was lowered from 72% to 70% and a the scheme is now capped at the equivalent of Council Tax Band C, this means that anyone residing in a property that is banded for Council Tax between Band D-H will now have their Council Tax Support award calculated up the equivalent amount of a Band C property.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the experimental Burnt Oak Central (BOC) Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

The experimental scheme became operational on 8 April 2024 and was introduced in order to address local parking concerns and traffic flow problems.

You said

We received 9 responses to the statutory consultation during the 6 month consultation period. Responses were received from residents and schools in the area and from the surrounding CPZs. Feedback included requests:

• for an extension of the double yellow lines at the junction of Gloucester Grove with Montrose Avenue, to prevent vehicles from overrunning the footway.
• from schools for staff parking permits and allocated parking spaces for drop-offs and pickups during school peak hours.
• from neighbouring CPZs that the operational hours in their CPZs to be brought in line with those of BOC to prevent parking displacement.
• to increase parking for businesses that were facing parking problems following the introduction of Burnt Oak Central CPZ.

We did

Based on the feedback received we have decided to make the BOC CPZ permanent from 14 April 2025. The CPZ will continue under the experimental order until this date.

Alongside making the CPZ permanent, we have also:

• added the request for extension of double yellow lines at the junction of Gloucester Grove with Montrose Avenue into the parking minor works programme for investigations.
• provided limited parking on Montrose Avenue to help with school drop-offs and pickups.
• made provisions for school staff parking.
• introduced business permit parking in Montrose Avenue to help local businesses
• added the request to review the operational hours in Burnt Oak (Zone BO) and Mill Hill (Zone E) for consideration in the borough’s CPZ Programme

We have written to residents detailing the outcome of this consultation. You can read this letter here.

Read more about the consultation

We asked

We sought your views on our proposed 16-19 SEND Travel Assistance Policy. Our goal is to make our policies clear and easy to understand for those considering or applying for transport. The policy for this age group included the most proposed changes, with an emphasis on promoting independence where possible and preparing young people for transitioning into adulthood, in regard to the travel assistance options available.

You said

A total of 25 participants provided feedback on the policy. All feedback was taken into account when finalising the policy. Key feedback included:

• concerns about the criteria for exceptional circumstances not being clear and understandable
• unclear criteria for the information that will be considered for discretionary decisions.

We did

To prepare families for any transitions and key changes, the policy has been signed off ahead of the statutory deadline of 31 May 2025. The policy will be published for the public before the 31 May 2025 deadline.

We recognise the need to consider transitions and ensure families have information about any key changes in advance.

Feedback regarding exceptional circumstances and discretionary decisions has been taken into consideration. Additional guidance and an FAQ will be drafted and issued alongside the revised policy. We will collaborate with the Barnet Parent/Carer Forum and the SEN Transport User Group to produce the additional guidance.

We will continue to ensure all policies allow for exceptions, taking individual circumstances and needs into account, whilst emphasising the importance of independence where possible.

Safety remains a priority, and we will conduct individual assessments, taking into account each young adult’s needs and personal circumstances. Risk assessments will ensure that travel arrangements offered are safe for each individual.

We will organize workshops where parents, carers, and young adults can provide feedback on the travel assistance services and participate in discussions about potential improvements.

You can read the results and key changes here.

The proposed policy can be found here.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed reduction to the Published Admission Number (PAN) of Moss Hall Junior School, from 120 places to 90 places. The link feeder school, Moss Hall Infant, has already reduced its PAN from 120 to 90 places, in response to a fall in demand for places in recent years. The proposal to reduce Moss Hall Junior School’s PAN to 90 places would bring the junior school’s PAN in line with the infant school’s PAN.

You said

We received 12 responses. Approximately half of the respondents agreed with the proposal, citing that the reduction would better align the admission number with current demand. Furthermore, those in favour noted that the admission number could be increased if demand rises in the future, without the need for a further consultation process. A similar number of respondents disagreed with the reduction, expressing concerns that it would lead to increased congestion in neighbouring schools. A small number of respondents, two in total, neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

We did

The PAN for Moss Hall Junior School has formally been reduced from 120 to 90 places, with effect from 1 September 2026. This will support financial planning and ensure the most efficient use of the school’s resources.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked for your views on the implementation of two ‘School Streets’ which is a controlled pedestrian and cycling zone during school pick up and drop off hours on the following roads:

• Windsor Drive (between Bohun Grove and Ridgeway Avenue)
• Chestnut Grove (between Daneland and Ridgeway Avenue)

The proposed times are 8.15-9.30am and 3.00-3.45pm Monday to Friday, term time only.

You said

We received 256 responses to this engagement with:

• 40.23% of respondents supportive of the measures.
• 50.39% of respondents opposed to the measures.
• 9.38% of respondents neither supportive nor opposed.

Further feedback included:

• 23.80% of respondents stated the scheme pushes traffic outside of the zone.
• 8.10% stated it should be extended to include Ridgeway Avenue.
• 8.57% of people stated they wanted to see alternative measures
• 4.76% stated proposals would impact their daily routines.

We did

Based on results from the engagement that showed a number of the respondents were concerned about traffic pushing onto their roads, we are looking at extending the School Street Zone.

The School Street Zone we are proposing will be Ridgeway Avenue between Cat Hill and Daneland, Chestnut Grove, Windsor Drive and Bohun Grove.

We will recommend that we launch the School Street Zone under an 18-month experimental basis. The first 6-months of which will include the statutory consultation.

Residents will be written to ahead of the School Street Zone, informing them of the measures and inviting them to share their views during the statutory consultation period.