Newsletter   Q4 2025

If you oppose the proposed Cockfosters Station Car Park Development then you MUST RESPOND TO ENFIELD COUNCIL TODAY.  

CLARA has already logged its objection, alongwith many other residents, but we need VOLUME objections to ensure Enfield Council listen to our community. 

ENFIELD PLANNING CONSULTATION - COMMENTING ON THE PROPOSAL

Enfield has insisted that all consultation comments are received by a hard and fast deadline of Sunday 23 November. 

This dogmatic approach is unusual and not in keeping with their normal practice of accepting input in good faith until the date when the officers report to the Planning Committee is prepared: The whole approach is lip-service and at odds with the comments in the letter to residents - if they deigned to send it to you.

You should make your representations on the Enfield Planning Portal. Please copy and paste the below url into your browser: 

https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/the-planning-register/ 

You can use the online planning register to find the application, using the following reference number in the search box to find it 25/03547/VAR (this reference number is the variation application which is open for comments and is associated to the original planning application 21/02517/FUL)

NOTE: Many people have had difficulty commenting through the Enfield Council portal. If you too find this a problem, then please EMAIL the council at: planning.decisions@enfield.gov.uk quoting reference number 25/03547/VAR and advising that you have tried submitting through the portal which has a glitch and is not accepting submissions. 

In making your objections, you may care to raise the following in your own words:

• The fundamental change in the scheme from Build To Rent to Build for Sale. 

• The increased scale of the development in terms of increase in population, on top of the intervening development of 226 flats at the adjacent Blackhorse Tower.

• The overbearing nature of the development because of the increases in height and massing.

• The adverse impact on the outlook and ecology of the adjacent Park, Park Cemetery and Green Belt.

• Additional load on infrastructure and services in the immediate area and in the wider area in terms of schools, NHS capacity, hospitals etc. Intervening developments have added to these issues.

• Parking, transport and roads. The existing main road is already the subject of continued regular traffic jams and nearby residential roads are already subject to parking near capacity. As the northern terminus of a major tubeline these traffic issues will remain.

• The access to the site will be greatly constrained. The belated inclusion of a small drop-off zone within the campus is impractical.

• Concerns over the quality and safety of the development: Small high-rise homes, lack of amenity and recreational space.

• The safety and security of the public spaces. The previous police consultation raised this.

• The inadequacy of the s106 agreement concluded in 2023.

• The lack of transparency in the consultation process.

WRITING TO THE CEO OF ENFIELD COUNCIL

Additionally, we would encourage you to write to the Chief Executive Officer of Enfield Council registering your objections:

1. The unreasonable timetable and process for this consultation; 

2. The selective and undemocratic process of communication to both those who had objected to the previous plans and those who in the roads that will be affected;

3. The decision by Enfield to handle this as a variation to the existing scheme, whereas the process should more correctly be handled as a new application.

We suggest your emails or letters are addressed to: Perry.Scott@enfield.gov.uk with copies to, Brett.Leahy@enfield.gov.uk Executive Director, Communities and Environment

Where you are able and willing to, please can you blind copy (bcc) CLARA so that we can keep our own tally of the objections being raised: CLARA email: clara.cockfosters@gmail.com

Let's make our voices heard! 

With thanks

CLARA

PLEASE FIND BELOW THE SUBMISSION SENT IN DIRECTLY TO ENFIELD COUNCIL BY CLARA:

CLARA Objections to Planning Application 25/03547/VAR

CLARA Objects to the referenced Application. Our evaluation of the documentation has been compromised and prejudiced by the aggressive timeline insisted upon by LB Enfield. We have separately written with our objections on process to the Chief Executive of the Council to request his action.

We want this Variation withdrawn and replaced with a New Application. Failing that, this Public Consultation should be rerun, so as to include all residential addresses within a 15‑minute walk of the Station, with a closing date of 31 January 2026.

Our opinion is that the proposed amendments to the extant permission have been judiciously crafted so as to have limited external impact on the Towers, in order to make the case for limited ‘friction’ at this next stage of approval. A proper and objective redesign is necessary, with particular attention to safety.

This is definitely not a matter that should be delegated to Officers, unless this Application is to be rejected. The scheme would have a permanent impact on the lives of Cockfosters residents and the people that would reside in any Towers.

CLARA comments on this specific Application:

1. This is a controversial scheme. It was only passed at Commitee in 2022 on the stated grounds of a narrow Planning Balance. A number of fundamental issues remain with the scheme and there are failings in the design which this Variation has not resolved.

2. Unresolved issues include: Treatment of Protected Persons, especially those using the Car Park, under the Equalities Act due to the superficial EqIA (the Public Sector Equality Duty requires both officers and the Committee to evidence due regard); impractical vehicular access across the site and consequential adverse pedestrian safety – there will be various vehicle movements, including TfL staff, delivery vehicles, drop offs, taxis etc.; inadequate and compromised design of supposed drop‑off facilities – it is simply impractical; security and safety of the pedestrian precinct (as highlighted in police comments on the extant planning permission). Developing concerns for emerging fire safety codes are salient.

3. The proposed development of 373 flats will result in a significant increase in local population. Additionally, development of 226 flats at the adjacent Blackhorse Tower and nearby at the large Fairview Development in New Barnet have been commenced since the planning for this scheme began. Taken together, these would result in substantial additional demand on NHS, hospitals, schools and other services in the immediate and wider area, for which there is no provision. Specifically, this scheme would increase proposed numbers of flats by 22, a density increase of 6.3 % with a 16.3 % increase in habitable rooms.

4. The unreasonable timeframe has not permitted us to study the detailed plans nor to seek independent expert advice. However, we know that the plans have been revised in order to address post‑Grenfell safety codes – notably the inclusion of two staircases. Nevertheless, the correct approach should have been a grassroots redesign rather than shoehorning two adjacent staircases into substantially unchanged towers. The separation of these staircases by only a fire door, rather than greater physical separation, would not provide safe escape routes. The established practice over many years has been for significant separation of staircases. We are not confident that the proposed solution here meets any emerging best‑practice. It is recognised that industry practice is in flux: One experienced observer has likened the development of safety designs for tall buildings to ‘the Wild West without a Sheriff’. The access to this site is problematic so fire safety considerations must be paramount.

5. In short, this Application seeks to fast‑track approval without necessary redesign.

6. The scheme overall is comprised of large numbers of relatively small residential units. Although the number of supposed family units has increased we have not been able to study the designs in sufficient detail to establish whether the room sizes, designs, including safety routes, are acceptable. The overall scheme has always been deficient in terms of recreational space and it remains so.

7. It is an anachronism that the plans have avoided Gateway One, the Planning Stage (mandated by the Building Safety Act), without construction having started. This revision of the plans should not have been undertaken without BSR involvement.

8. Cockfosters Station will continue as a terminus for the Piccadilly Line. It serves as a hub connecting travellers from many parts of Enfield, Barnet and farther afield who need to access the Piccadilly Line. Parking utilisation at the Station, on weekdays and weekends, is often near 90 percent. It supports residents who live beyond walking distance, those who want to visit London, those who need to visit major hospitals and even those travelling to mainline stations or airports. We find the transportation analysis to be inadequate, if not risible. The local accessible bus connections, particularly to the North and East, are inadequate. New and credible transportation studies are needed.

9. The parking pressure on residential roads near the Station is already substantial. The development would increase the load on these roads. Plans for suggested implementation of CPZs in both the Enfield and Barnet roads in Cockfosters are problematic. CPZs would impose significant extra costs on residents – to say nothing of the adverse impact on the lives of young and old. Previous CLL consultations and EqIAs have not even engaged with this issue. A credible new EqIA should be undertaken. Throughout the passage of both CLL schemes, on which this Application is based, there has been no serious attention paid to Equalities issues.

10. The experience of the aborted development at Arnos Grove is relevant. The Station Car Park there was closed by TfL, only for the project to then be apparently abandoned. In view of the collateral impact on nearby residential roads and the A111 of closing the Cockfosters Station Car Park, a number of mitigations must be in place before the Applicant commences construction: Inter alia – a construction management plan with specific measures for the A111; public consultation with nearby roads on design of CPZs or other measures; implementation of specific CPZs. We need the Applicant and Council to commit to these measures.

11. The approach adopted by the Applicant, including first seeking an NMA and now this Variation, might reasonably be viewed as an attempt fast‑track approval without the proper redesign that addresses the scheme’s safety and other failings. The overall development should be re‑examined and this should require a new application.

12. Finally, the s106 Agreement that was negotiated in 2023 is inadequate. It should be re‑examined and renegotiated.