Plans for two blocks of flats on the site of a former police station have been refused after a heated debate over affordable housing.

Councillors wanted to turn down the proposals for Finchley Police Station on Ballards Lane because the developer only planned to provide three affordable units.

But they were told rejecting the plans on that basis may not be successful.

The developer wanted to build 47 flats in two blocks of five storeys on the site of the former police station, along with 24 parking spaces and 87 cycle spaces.

Previous applications were refused due to their impact on the appearance of Ballards Lane, with councillors objecting to the flats’ size, mass and bulk.

The developer’s re-submitted application was a storey lower than the previous plan and had been altered to make it easier on the eye.

Consultant BNP Paribas carried out an assessment of the proposed development and it was found not to be viable, meaning the developer would not need to provide affordable housing.

The developer’s agent said three affordable flats would be provided on a “without prejudice basis” and argued the blocks would help to address the housing crisis.

Planning officers recommended that councillors approve the development.

But speaking at a meeting of Finchley and Golders Green Area Planning Committee last night (Monday, July 23), Cllr Alan Schneiderman, Labour member for Woodhouse, said: “Surely it is inconceivable that building 47 flats in that location, that no affordable housing is being provided?

“If you can’t provide it there, then you surely can’t anywhere?”

Cllr Danny Rich, Labour member for West Finchley, added: “I just cannot understand how a consultant working on behalf of this borough said there was not a requirement for affordable housing, and as a result the applicant generously offered three out of 47.”

When councillors asked to see the viability assessment at the meeting, they were told they could not do so as it was not a public document.

A motion was proposed to reject the application on the grounds of ‘massing and bulking’ – the same reason given when the previous bid was refused.

Six members voted to refuse the application, while one voted in favour.

But a further motion to defer the application until councillors had seen the viability assessment was defeated.