Page 203 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

13th / 14th June 2014 (confirmed)
Some of these dates have already been given that events took place within the FOI I
requested.
Also you say you did not serve a Noise Abatement Notice on the squatters / occupiers, as it
would have had no benefit to do so as you would not have been able to take anyone to court,
and I do understand that the council was working with the owners of the building to deal with
this problem.
But I am sure if you had served a Noise Abatement Notice to the squatters / occupiers /
Building, it would have covered not just to take someone to court. It would have covered the
council to have seized sound equipment and due to this stopped the events far sooner with a
Noise Abatement Notice in place on the building then not having served one at all.
I believe that is the reason a Noise Abatement Notice can be served on occupiers / Buildings
under Environmental Protection Act 1990 section 80
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ned Johnson [mailto: Ned.Johnson@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 11 January 2016 12:17
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Andy Higham; Robert Oles; Theresa Dodd
Subject: RE: RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms. Cordell,
Thank you for your email; I have rechecked our database and indeed, I did make a mistake
and missed one complaint which was received by our Residential Noise Team on 20/04/14, it
was the only complaint received by the Council prior to the ones listed in the FOI response
sent to
26,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] -11-01-2016-01.pdf
you. The officer who received the complaint tried to contact the customer who made it on
several occasions but was unable to do so and as such we were unable to verify the
complaint. The next complaint received was then on 18/05/14 as stated in my original
response.
We did not receive any further complaints after June 2014 in regard to the Man Building and
therefore as far as we were aware the matter had been resolved.
A Noise Abatement Notice was not served on the squatters as we would not have been able to
verify any names given, if indeed they would have given a name and it would have been
unenforceable as it is extremely unlikely that we would have been able to take anybody to
court who was squatting. The line taken was to pursue the owners of the building who then
needed to evict the squatters and secure the premises, which they did; serving a Noise
Abatement Notice would have had no effect on the owners as they were already taking the
necessary steps to stop the problem.
Yours sincerely
Ned Johnson
Principal Officer Pollution Control & Planning Enforcement Planning, Highways &
Transportation Regeneration & Environment Department Enfield Council
www.enfield.gov.uk
Protect the Environment - Think Before You Print.
"Enfield Council is committed to serving the whole borough, fairly, delivering excellent
services and building strong communities."
From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk