pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
facebook icon twitter icon

Share this article share on facebook share on twitter

Following the suspension of the Fox's entertainment licence because of complaints from neighbours, an online petition to Enfield Council in support of permitting live music has amassed more than a thousand signatures.

fox emblem on top of main entrance to the fox 450pxIn response to complaints from some residents of the flats built on the Fox's former car park, the council has suspended and is reviewing the licence which allows the Fox to put on live music events. This has come as a blow not just to the its management and to the musicians who play there, but more importantly also to the many local residents who have welcomed the reopening of Palmers Green's landmark pub and its community room, notable for being the first premises in the London Borough of Enfield to be recognised and registered as a Community Asset.

Information about the review and about how residents can make representations (deadline 15th January) has been posted on the exterior of the pub. The wording of the notice is reproduced below.

Premises: The Fox, 413 Green Lanes, London N13 4JD

Notice is given that application has been made for a review the premises licence (under s.51(3), s.87(3) or s.167 to the (Licensing Act 2003) in respect of the above premises. The grounds for review are:

  • There have been several noise complaints regarding live and recorded music from this premises, which have led to officers witnessing a breach of a statutory nuisance abatement notice.
  • The review by the Council's Licensing Enforcement Team seeks to disapply the automatic entitlement of regulated entertainment by applying a condition to that effect to the premises licence, which would mean regulated entertainment was not permitted a the premises at any time.
  • The premises have been advised on several occasions.
  • This review application is submitted in promotion of the prevention of public nuisance licensing.

Anyone who wishes to make representations regarding this application must give notice by emailing:

Representations must be made between 19 December 2023 and 15 January 2024.

The public register can be accessed online by visiting www.enfield.gov.uk/services/business-and-licensing and following the link to the Licensing Register. The application can be inspected upon request to within the 28 days consultation period, dated above.

It is an offence, under section 158 of the Licensing Act 2003, to knowingly or recklessly make a false statement in connection with an application for a premises licence. A person guilty of an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.

In response, the Fox's manager, James Sharkey, has launched an online petition calling on Enfield Council to allow the pub to retain its music licence, arguing that it is a "cornerstone of the community" and "an integral part of our cultural fabric that brings together people from all walks of life through its music events". At the time of writing, 1,033 people had signed the petition.

The fact that for many decades the Fox's community room at the rear of the pub had served as a focal point for both private and community events was probably the decisive argument in the successful application for registration as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) in 2015. As a consequence, when, 18 months later, Star Pubs & Bars launched a series of consultations about building flats on the site, a new community room was part of the plan from the outset. Indeed, it is quite possible that, were it not for the ACV, instead of providing for a "resized" (ie smaller) pub, the owners might have chosen to maximise their profits by demolishing the Fox to make room for a larger multistorey block of flats. Palmers Green would have lost an unusual architectural landmark and a key venue where members of the community can come together.

Since the Fox reopened eleven months ago, the community room has been in regular use. Notably, it has brought internationally renowned musicians to Palmers Green to perform in the regular Jazz Mondays. Simon Purcell from Kaiyo Jazz says these have benefited residents, musicians and local businesses:

"Jazz Mondays at the Fox have provided access to top jazz artists in our community, at affordable prices. There are so many reasons why this needs to continue, not least location, access and affordability (no need to venture into central London) and what we are trying to do with local enthusiasts and local businesses.

"Musicians have suffered immeasurably since the worst of Covid and Jazz Mondays at the Fox was becoming a sustainable, community-based music project, attractive to listeners and the local community."

Log in to comment
Darren Edgar posted a reply
04 Jan 2024 09:08
Petition signed. Height of absurdity and just the kind of issue music and nightlife venues are facing across the country - flats are built by existing premises, residents complain about the foreseeable noise, idiots at mediocre local authorities suspend licences and kill businesses.
Karl Brown posted a reply
04 Jan 2024 09:54
I believe Darren is referring to the Supplementary Planning Guidelines, published November 2017 (that’s pre Planning permission for The Fox), in support of the 2016 London Plan, which succinctly in the Executive Summary, but in much more policy-speak elsewhere, says:

AGENT OF CHANGE Development proposals should seek to manage noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development. They should also not add unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of existing businesses. Acoustic and other design measures should be used to mitigate noise and other impacts. There should be no prospect of unreasonable neighbour complaints, licensing restrictions or threat of closure.

I don’t know from where the noise complaints originated but someone, not the complainant nor the Fox management, would seem to have a planning issue requiring explanation before them.
Neil Littman posted a reply
05 Jan 2024 16:51
I actually played with my band at The Fox on October 14 last year and was surprised when our future gigs were cancelled due to complaints about noise and initially thought this wasn't justified since we were asked to finish playing by 11.15pm on a Saturday evening. However I have since got hold of the council report about the premises and the full list of complaints and discovered the real cause is the sub-standard construction of the flats that were built next door. I think it is fair to say that if you buy an apartment next to a pub you should expect what can come with the territory. Even the best controlled pubs cannot avoid excessive noise from customers such as watching a sports event on screens or people making noise on their way out of the pub but the issues on the report go a lot further. Here are a couple of quotes from the environmental noise officer and myself. 

'I mentioned that local residents can also hear the hand dryer in the toilets, from inside their homes' (!)

'Loud music could then be heard from inside Resident 3’s home, and song lyrics could be heard word for word. The noise officer could hear the words from the singer talking even with the microphone off. The noise officer observed that it appeared that there was no or very little sound insulation between the pub and the flats, and, that no regard given was given by staff to their neighbours'.

The second comment relates to my band by the way and we were not told anything during or after the gig or subsequently when I went back to get another booking but it sounds like the issue is with the building not the music if the hand dryer can be heard!

Have never heard anything like this before and all the comment about 'the singer talking with the microphone off' is extraordinary and unlikely to be true.

Will tell our singer Paul not to speak between numbers in future (!)

Also there is a note about water leaks on p11 of the report happening in the pub kitchen from the flats above so the pub is suffering as well. 

I already knew about this and the construction of the flats being sub-standard. An architect friend of mine pulled out of a purchase there due to poor quality building standards and leaks.

I note there are no complaints on a Monday about the jazz which takes place in a back room but the ban even covers that.

Have attached a copy of the full review and complaints.

Think ultimately it is going to be very problematic to get the live music back in the pub or maybe they should restrict the hours the hand dryers can be used…

 

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF

Well discovered Neil. Sadly, is reads much more serious than a move to paper towels will resolve. I’ve now heard from two sources that regulated entertainment was central to the business case and without it the level of borrowing taken out to move in means the Fox may fold. To lift from the report:
  • “officers are of the view that the premises is not suitable for music other than only background level, at any time of day. The sound insulation in the building is simply not adequate.”
  • “No conditions would be strong enough to control the sound level issues stemming from any regulated entertainment. We therefore seek to remove all music from the licensable activities of the premises licence.”
Stepping back and using a different lens: here is a long-established venue with a long-established flexible function room. Such was its value to this community that the council deemed it the borough's first asset of community value. That flexible function room then became an integral part of the planning permission for the development which saw many flats built around and adjacent to the established pub building.

No surprises, surely.

There is then a gap in the timeline, presume where sit players such as the architects, developers, contractors, freeholder and various arms of our council. And we ultimately reach a comment in the officer’s report:
  • “To conclude, the premises is not deemed to be a suitable venue to provide regulated entertainment.”
Oops.

The pub owners and their borrowing, the affected residents (because it can’t be fun hearing hand dryers all the time) and this community seem to be fall guys, all suffering or about to suffer greatly.

There must be blame, and hopefully a satisfactory resolution for all parties, quickly. Here’s a space where our council need to show their hand and their mettle.  
Karl Brown posted a reply
10 Jan 2024 15:40
Possibly with the exception of The Money, there appear to be no winners: people who bought a property only to have their lives impacted from hearing hand dryers and more; a community about to lose its long-established entertainment venue; and possibly a small pub chain’s significant capital investment. Not a happy scenario.

I have made a representation seeking to cover aspects of the 4 licensing objectives plus my experience of the Fox’s management team. I’ve also sought to follow the logic through from the old Fox to the new Fox as it applies to live music and such. That section of my representation is attached. There appears to be a yawning gap where processes and procedures should have stopped the situation landing where it now sits. Or I may be missing an angle. If that is the case, then I’d be delighted to hear.

 

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF

There's more reporting of the Fox music licence issues on the Enfield Dispatch website:

Thousands rally to support Palmers Green pub threatened with losing licence
Neil Littman posted a reply
11 Jan 2024 08:21
Enfield Dispatch has also reported on the situation at the Fox after finding out that contrary to what I had been told, the developers who built the apartments next door to the pub are still in business and claim that sound insulation was installed in the building which also contradicts the council version of events in their report. Needless to say this will all hopefully be discussed at the court appeal in the near future but in the meantime, the council would not comment on the story. One other point which may be crucial is whether the licence for the pub had lapsed between when the Fox closed down for five or so years for refurbishment and when the new licence was granted. The developers may not have been aware that they wanted to bring back live music and only provided sound insulation to basic minimum levels. For all they knew the pub was simply going to serve drinks and food and have some sports on TV. All this hopefully will come to light.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
11 Jan 2024 09:28
The developers were Dominus, weren't they? Substantial group. I walk past a massive site in the City of theirs. Very bad PR for them if this is allowed to blow up (and is true).
Karl Brown posted a reply
11 Jan 2024 14:20
Neil wonders if a gap in the Fox’s functioning as a pub offers a credibility-escape to anyone. The penultimate paragraph of my submission a few posts back indicates not; more directly the first planning application was necessarily resubmitted because it didn’t include a flexible function room along the lines of that previously experienced. A slam dunk I would suggest.
Colin Younger posted a reply
11 Jan 2024 17:03
The submission assembled by Karl is impressive. However, the planning conditions re sound proofing don't, so far as I read them, explicitly refer to sound generated internally, by music etc. It covers internal machinery and extraction equipment, and appears to focus on noise generated externally. Of course even on this interpretation, noise from hand dryers ought to be covered!

 Have I misunderstood this, are these actually "loopholes", and if so are they significant?

 
Karl Brown posted a reply
12 Jan 2024 08:49
Colin draws out a possible weak link (for some party) and thanks. I wasn’t seeking to prepare a legal-case-ready submission, rather a top level, here’s the scenario picture, so, I’ll highlight some specific PP as it related to the flexible function room:-
  • “Prior to the refurbished A4 pub unit hereby approved being open to the trade, details (including, the technical specification of soundproofing/acoustic insultation qualities) of the bi-folding doors or movable partitions between the flexible function room and the remainder of the pub shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be installed as approved and shall be maintained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.”
 It would be hard to make a case that individuals enjoying the remainder of the pub were to be noise protected but adjacent residents were not. There's a failure gap in here, just where and just who is yet to be determined / made public.
Neil Littman posted a reply
18 Jan 2024 17:31
I have spoken to the council and the issue is solely concerned with noise from music. Nothing else. Also in instances like this the venue would have to soundproof from their side of the building to prevent and more complaints provided they can afford to do so. Also noticed that none of the complaints referred to the Monday jazz club which was also forced to close down and took place in the function room at the back of the pub. Probably our bad luck that we played in the main bar area near the entrance where the doors were opening and closing frequently. Will see what the licensing hearing comes back with which should be next month.

Clicky