Forum topic: The Fox - not sold.... yet

So the rumours about the Fox having been sold to property developers aren't true - see Ellie's comment on Palmers Green Jewel in the North . But given the rate at which pubs are closing everywhere and the rate at which the price of housing is increasing, it's probable that its sale is pretty imminent.

The Fox may not be to everyone's taste, but it's the only pub in the centre of Palmers Green that has any history and that looks like a pub - the others are converted shops and look like it from the outside, however welcoming they might be inside. It has regular events - a comedy club and (until recently at least) live music. The meeting room at the back of the pub makes an excellent venue for Talkies Community Cinema and for public meetings.

And the Fox is one of the few landmark buildings that we have - because of its size, its rather unusual architecture and its location.

So demolishing the Fox would really be to tear out part of the heart of Palmers Green. Let's hope that it can be retained as a pub, even if part of the car park has to be built on.

According to the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) pubs are closing at the rate of 31 a week and every week two pubs are converted into supermarkets! Because pubs are classified as A4 businesses owners can convert pubs into supermarkets or even demolish them without planning permission, and CAMRA is campaigning for a change in planning law to make it necessary to obtain planning permission for any of these changes.

While the law remains unchanged the future of the Fox both as a pub and as a building is in jeopardy.

However, there are some encouraging signs. The new planning minister, Kris Hopkins, has recognised the important community role of pubs and is encouraging campaigners to lobby for particular pubs to be listed as Assets of Community Value.

Recently Wandsworth Council issued an Article 4 Direction to protect the Wheatsheaf in Tooting Bec. Wandsworth Council will also be implementing a pub protection policy across the borough.

If we don't want to lose the Fox we should be campaigning for a similar move by Enfield Council.

For more information about CAMRA's campaign see pubsmatter.org.uk .

As far as we know, the Fox hasn't been sold, but we cannot be confident that it won't be and that the new owners will not wish to retain it as a pub, as the pub trade is performing significantly less well than the market for flats and houses.

As I pointed out a couple of days ago, at present planning laws allow conversion or demolition of pubs without planning permission. CAMRA is campaigning to change the law to require planning permission for both, and the current government consultation on changes to planning laws (see this article ) provide an ideal opportunity for members of the public to join in this campaign in an effective way. A suitable opening has been provided by the government's proposal to require planning permission to convert shops or offices into betting shops or pay-day loan offices (at the moment this can be done without planning permission).

CAMRA is urging its members (and anyone else who values pubs for whatever reason) to respond to the consultation and has provided some model answers to relevant questions. (There is no need to answer other questions in the survey, unless of course you have views on them too.) Their suggested responses are as follows:

Question No	Short response	Summary detail
2.3	No	We recognise a risk that developers will seek to redesignate or describe certain pubs as night clubs in order to exploit this permitted development right and change the use of A4 pubs to C3 residential without planning permission and without local consultation. Pubs Matter! So why can’t we have a say?
2.5	No opinion	We are concerned that there could be a sequential loss of pubs through conversion to offices, followed by conversion to residential. We wish to see permitted development rights which allow the change of use of pubs removed. At the very least there should be restrictions on this new proposed right to exclude A4 pubs in temporary use as B1 offices. Pubs Matter! So why can’t we have a say?
2.8	Yes	We understand and support the proposal to tidy up the use class order so that A2 will encompass only betting shops and payday loan shops. We recognise that this is necessary to allow change of use into the use class i.e. new instances of betting shops etc to be brought under planning control and to allow communities a voice. We would point out that the A4 use class only includes drinking establishments, the majority of which are pubs. This conveniently allows a straight-forward mirror image reform which would restrict change of use away from class A4. Please see our answer to Question 2.9
2.9	Yes	We welcome the proposal to bring the proliferation of betting shops and pay day loan shops under planning control. Local people should be engaged in the planning process and have a say on the balance of facilities in their neighbourhoods. Many valued pubs have been converted to betting shops via the permitted development route over the past decade. We support any restrictions which would reduce the threat of change of use. We would further like to see removal of permitted development rights which allow change of use away from the A4 use class.
2.10	Yes	The definition of pay day loan shop should be as broad as possible and include modern day pawn brokers e.g. Cash Converters where goods are bought and sold to and from members of the public.
2.22	Yes	The GPDO should be amended such that demolition or any change of use of property falling within use class A4 is not permitted development and should be subject to planning control.
2.23	Yes	Pubs provide our feel-good factor. They are a constant reminder of our cultural identity in an evolving society. Permitted development rights allowing change of use of a pub lead to the further loss of pubs in our society. This in turn leads to an increase in lone drinking at home, unsupervised drinking in streets and public places, social alienation, a loss of social cohesion and the destruction of heritage and culture. These are all negative impacts which have an associated cost to society and government.
2.24	No	Article 4 Directions are very rarely used on pubs. They are difficult and tedious as it stands and we do not support any move to weaken their power or effectiveness. When developers buy land, they should be aware that a change of use is not a certainty but needs to be considered in the context of planning policy. The price paid ought to reflect the current lawful planning use of the land. We do not believe that the risks involved in development should be underwritten by the taxpayer. There should be no compensation payable when local authorities decide to make Article 4 Directions. We would wish to see Article 4 Directions rendered surplus by meaningful planning reform as per the suggestion in Question 2.22.

To read and respond to the consultation visit this page . To read the complete proposals, visit this page . To find out about CAMRA's campaign to protect pubs, visit this page .