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 share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky

The Lateral Property Group have submitted an amended version of their planning application to develop the Fox pub and its car park.  Following public consultation and discussions with Enfield planning officers, the new application is for an increased number of flats (54 rather than 44), of which 30 per cent would be classified as "affordable" (compared with a target set by the Mayor of London at 50 per cent).

Planning application summaries compared

Original application

17/03634/FUL | Redevelopment of site involving partial demolition of existing buildings to provide refurbished public house (A4) and commercial unit (A1-A5, D2) on the ground floor together with erection of 44 residential units comprising (25 x 1 bed, 14 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed, 1 x studio) involving Part 3, Part 4 storey side and rear extensions with associated car parking plant, hard/soft landscaping and amenity space at first floor. | Public House 413 Green Lanes London N13 4JD.

New application

17/03634/FUL | Redevelopment of site involving partial demolition of existing buildings to provide refurbished public house (A4) and commercial unit (A1-A5, D2) on the ground floor together with erection of 54 residential units comprising (31 x 1 bed, 22 x 2 bed and 1 x studio) and Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5 storey side and rear extensions with associated car parking, cycle parking, plant, hard/soft landscaping and amenity space at first floor (as amended by revised plans received). | Public House 413 Green Lanes London N13 4JD

To view the new application, visit planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications and enter 17/03634/FUL in the search box.

An additional storey added to the new blocks

A significant change to the design is the addition of an additional fifth storey/fourth floor to the new blocks behind the pub, taking up the area currently occupied by the car park and function room.  This is set back to reduce its visibility somewhat.  The elevation below gives an impression of the size of this new building.

green lanes elevation new fox

As regards the design and aesthetics of the new blocks, despite the trenchant criticism of members of the Conservation Advisory Group, these are little changed from the proposals that were exhibited last year, as is clear from these artist's impressions.

new fox from corner of fox lane

new fox from fox lane

Reconfigured pub and function room

In contrast to last year's documentation, the new application is short on information about the restructured pub, especially as regards its interior floor plan and the location of the "flexible" function room.  However, the Planning Statement Addendum includes arguments to justify the chosen size of the function room, its importance to Palmers Green and the relevance of the Fox's status as an Asset of Community Value.  See the extracts below.

The original Edwardian pub building that features at the junction of Green Lanes and Fox Lane would be retained and refurbished as part of the proposals with the newer extensions demolished. The new pub would extend to 364 sq. m at ground floor level, 153 sq. m at basement level and an 89 sq. m manager’s flat above. The pub would include an 82 sq. m flexible function space (excluding the 13 sq. m private function room access corridor) which is intended to accommodate the existing groups that currently use the Fox’s function room. This represents a reduction of 58 sq. m based on the current function room size of 140 sq. m (please see section 6.4-6.13 for further detail on the function room). The new function space would offer the ability to be integrated into the remainder of the pub when not being used by groups through the use of removable furniture and bi-folding doors. The new pub building will extend to a width of 40m curving around the junction of Green Lanes and Fox Lane and will include a new build extension to the pub along Fox Lane for 17m. In addition to the Manager’s flat, the refurbished pub building will accommodate residential accommodation at first and second floor level. The refurbished pub building will accommodate the reintroduction of the original bell tower that was lost through historic alterations to the pub.

[...]

10.6.4 The Fox’s designation as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) is a material consideration to be taken into account in the determination of the Planning Application. However, as established in relevant appeal decisions, the weight to be attached to the designation is a matter for the Decision Maker based on the circumstances of the case as the principal purpose of the Asset of Community Value legislation is to provide communities with the right to bid for a designated site should it be put up for sale. The ACV legislation does not give the community a right to buy an asset and from a planning perspective, the purpose of the legislation does not seek to prevent otherwise acceptable alternative forms of development being delivered.

10.6.5 The application seeks to retain the original Fox building and the pub use on site. Although recent changes to permitted development rights have removed the ability for pubs to change to retail (A1), financial and professional services (A2) and restaurant (A3) uses without the need for planning permission, it is proposed to attach a Planning Condition to the permission requiring that the pub only be used for A4 (pub) or AA (drinking establishment with expanded food provision) purposes. This would mean that the use of the pub would be protected even if there were future changes to permitted development rights. 10.6.6 The Fox was listed as an ACV due to its use by the local community as a public house. It is understood that in recent years the use of pub has declined, and its state of repair has deteriorated materially reducing its attractiveness further. This applies particularly to the function room which over the twelve-month period between October 2016 and October 2017, was used an average of 1.3 times per week or 5.7 times per month for an average of 3.3 hours per event. This results in the room being used for less than four and a half hours per week and it therefore is unused for the vast majority of the time.

10.6.6 The layout of the function room with a separate bar at the rear requires an additional member of staff for busier events or requires customers to pass through the pub’s back of house and kitchen to purchase drinks from the main bar. This results in an inefficient or sub-standard operation. The only level access to the function room also requires passing through the pub’s kitchen and back of house areas. Despite the infrequent use of the function room, many of the costs such as business rates, insurance and utilities are fixed. As the function room is a later, more modern edition to the original pub building it also cannot be used as an extension of the main pub area when not in use and is therefore redundant for the vast majority of the time. Star Pubs and Bars and the current landlord consider that the function room is not suitable or viable in its current form.

10.6.7 As noted above, the weight to be attached to an ACV listing is a matter for the Decision Maker. There are a number of relevant appeal decisions that cover pubs in London including The Alexandra, Fortis Green, London, N2 9EY (CR/2015/0010 and APP/Y5420/W/14/3001921), where the Inspector gave some weight to the ACV listing although did not consider that that local community in that instance had demonstrated that the loss of the pub would prevent the community from meeting its day to day needs. Furthermore, The Ship in South Norwood, Croydon, APP/L5240/C/16/3145967 considered that the pub’s designation as an ACV did not outweigh the advantages of providing much needed housing and securing a viable use for the building. These Decisions were made prior to the publication of the draft London Plan in December 2017 which as will be detailed further below, is considered to increase the weight to be attached to the provision of housing.

10.6.8 The proposed development seeks to retain the ACV listed pub use on the site. The matters to be considered in considering the proposed development are therefore the extent to which the changes to the pub will affect the benefit provided by the facility to the local community and following the changes, if any, whether the local community will continue to be able to meet its day to day needs. It is also relevant to note that even if the proposed development were considered to reduce the benefit provided to the local community to the degree that the community was no longer able to meet its day to day needs, it would still be possible for the overall benefits of the development to outweigh this, as identified in the appeal decisions identified.

10.6.9 The new function room represents a reduction of 58 sq. m compared to the existing function room. Notwithstanding this, the new room will have level access, will be better integrated with the remainder of the newly refurbished pub and will have a dedicated entrance from Green Lanes. Level access to the new function space is also provided directly from the pub’s entrances along Fox Lane without the need to travel through back of house areas and accessible toilet facilities will be included within the newly refurbished pub. Layouts have also demonstrated that the function room will be able to accommodate each of the two main groups that currently use the space with the weekly Salsa classes and Talkies events held once every two months. The room will have a capacity of up to 144 (120 in cinema layout). In addition to this, the refurbishment of the pub itself into a higher quality family pub providing food and open for longer periods of the day provides an opportunity for increased non-function room community use of the building along with the potential for greater use of the function room itself.

10.6.10 Indeed, it is evident from the large number of representations in support of the proposals, that a refurbished pub would be likely to be well-used by the local members of the community including a number who do not currently visit The Fox. Indeed, a number of the objections to the application also mention in-principle support for the refurbishment and retention of the pub. It is therefore considered that the overall community benefit currently provided by The Fox will not reduce as part of the application proposals and has the potential to increase.

10.6.11 In respect of the community’s ability to meet its day to day needs, there are 15 other function and community rooms with 1.25 miles of the site (roughly a 10-minute walk) at an average distance of 0.85 miles and with a range of capacities between 10 and 450 (average 141). It is difficult to see on this basis how a smaller but better-quality function room as part of the new Fox would prevent the community from meeting its day to day needs.

10.6.12 On the basis of the above, the changes to the designated ACV would be positive in that they would provide for the ongoing viability of a facility currently used by the community and provide the potential for extended use of the facility by a wider cross section of the local community. As a result, there is no negative impact associated with the loss or reduction in quality of the ACV that need to be outweighed by other benefits. Notwithstanding this, the benefits and impacts of the proposed development are considered at the end of this Section of the Statement.

10.6.13 In summary, it is considered that the ACV listing can be given some weight in the consideration of the subject planning application. Overall, the proposals result in a smaller but higher quality function space with the refurbished pub offering the potential for more frequent and varied community use. It is therefore considered that the retention and refurbishment of the ACV listed pub is a positive weighing in favour of the proposed development.

 The deadline for commenting on the application is 16th March, but might possibly be extended.

Log in to comment
Colin Younger posted a reply
06 Mar 2018 16:15
So we have a new proposal with only 14 days to commen from the date of the letter (2 March). See 17/03634/FUL

We surely can't let this go by after all the dicussion of the earlier proposals?
Colin Younger posted a reply
06 Mar 2018 19:29
The link shoud be
https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OUHAYFJNJU200
N Morris posted a reply
06 Mar 2018 19:48
We cannot object to this proposal on the basis of the size of a community room - not when it will provide genuinely needed affordable housing, genuinely needed residential housing, genuinely needed refurbishment of the local pub and genuinely needed investment and regeneration of the high street. As a combination, this redevelopment benefits vastly more people than can possibly be offended by its height or the dimensions of the community room.

We must also consider whether our objections to size and height and lack of trees is actually just because of a feeling that the Edwardian character of the area must be preserved at all costs - even though the immediate area surrounding the site is not actually Edwardian at all. You need to get over the bridge for that.

The Council will not approve an application that reduces the sunlight/daylight of the surrounding residences, especially those on Devonshire Close, so how does this application actually harm anyone?

I can't say the architectural style is the kind that sets my heart soaring, but I like it a whole lot more than that grotty car park and the dilapidated state of the Fox. Red brick is an expensive material and Im thrilled they design does not use ugly cladding of the kind used elsewhere and it's actually brick all the way round the development, not just the bits visible from the high street. Natural materials like the timber soffits do not go out of style. I daresay the perforated metal grills will look naff at some point but they can be easily replaced. And all that aside, my opinion of whether I like the building or not is way down the list of priorities of whether it is giving more to the community than it is taking away.

It's never going to be perfect, it's a question of whether it is good enough in exchange for all the other benefits. For me, it is.
Sue Beard posted a reply
07 Mar 2018 07:47
I do think that as Natasha says we need to be careful of letting the great be the enemy of the good. For me it’s all about whether we get a refurbished Edwardian pub to announce pg and help us regenerate. The Fox is dying in front of our eyes.

What if they just walk away? sell it to a developer who then wants to make it residential and is prepared to close it and board it up until they get what they want, which they might eventually given the housing crisis.We could end up with an eyesore indefinitely. I am not trying to detract from the community use especially as I put in the ACV but there are risks so we need to decide when we have got a deal as good as we can reasonably expect. Conversation topic!

That said the new build in the car park is enormous
Karl Brown posted a reply
07 Mar 2018 14:02
Sue raises a good point – is there a desire for another “Bromfield House”, where the option of a restored G2 building to house a Toby carvery plus horticultural and artistic use of the stableyard may well now be seen as a reasonable shot compared to three decades of scaffolding, huge levels of sunk resource for no benefit, and a very uncertain but probably unpromising future.

One thing is certain, we’re going to see more large, and tall, housing sites locally over the coming years; it’s either that or we all die much earlier or build on the green belt; and neither alternate seems to carry much support.


On the sale to a developer issue: the ACV would give the community a prior window to bid in any sale proposal. Someone would however need to take on that lead.


As an aside, input which includes, “Fox Lane still has the air of a quiet country lane”, rather than the 6000 vehicle per day pseudo A Road it actually is, does risk undermining a document.
Colin Younger posted a reply
07 Mar 2018 17:40
The revised deadline is 23 March
Darren Edgar posted a reply
15 Mar 2018 12:24
I don't think I've ever agreed word for word more with any comment on this site than the above posted by N Morris.

Hits the nail on the head from every single possible angle and is why I voiced my support last time round and will again this.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
22 Mar 2018 00:04
A group of people drawn from the local stakeholder groups that have been involved in dialogue with Lateral, the firm which will be redeveloping the Fox pub and its car park, have released details of the objections that they will be submitting to Enfield Council.

They have issued two documents, one relating to the Fox's status as an Asset of Community Value and the future of its function room, the other to the architectural design of the housing blocks proposed for the car park area.

The Fox as an Asset of Community Value (ACV)

Comments on the revised proposals for the redevelopment of the Fox PH

You can submit comments via the Enfield Planning Portal

The deadline for submitting comments to the planning application is this Friday, 23rd March (a week later than the original deadline).
Adrian Day posted a reply
05 Apr 2018 12:18
At Tuesday night's Enfield Conservation Advisory Group meeting there was support for the principle of refurbishing The Fox and for providing housing on the adjacent car park, but strong opposition to the revised plans (and disappointment that comments on the initial application had been ignored). The main opposition centres on the size, scale and design of the flats and their dominance of the space. The Fox is one of Palmers Green's most iconic buildings; the new block of flats dominates the pub and the surrounding townscape. There were also concerns about the lack of suitable community space. Led by Friends of Lakes Estate there was a call for a redesign which is commercially viable for the developer, refurbishes the pub, preserves community space and provides much needed housing.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
05 Apr 2018 13:39
The planning officers' report that will be considered at the Planning Committee meeting on 10th April recommends approval of the revised planning application. You can find the report via this page:

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OUHAYFJNJU200.

It's the document dated 29th March and listed as "Planning Committee Report". You can also access it directly as part of the paperwork for the Planning Committee meeting:

https://governance.enfield.gov.uk/documents/g10144/Public%20reports%20pack%2010th-Apr-2018%2019.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf

The report was written before the application was discussed for a second time by the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) earlier this week. As mentioned by Adrian Day in an earlier post, the CAG members expressed strong opposition to the revised application.

The Planning Committee meeting on the 10th will be held at the Dugdale Centre at 7.30pm - see https://governance.enfield.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=124&MId=10145&zTS=undefined .
Colin Younger posted a reply
05 Apr 2018 13:47
If anyone wants to speak (and only those opposing the recommendation can do so), they need to register this with by noon on the 9th.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
05 Apr 2018 14:55
The email I got from the council implied anyone could speak, not just those opposed, quite rightly if this is to be in any way democratic.

Will be firing in my support in any way I can.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
05 Apr 2018 14:59
Apologies, re-read the letter and it does indeed say opposition only.

Will simply re-iterate my support for Neil's spot on comments below:

"We cannot object to this proposal on the basis of the size of a community room - not when it will provide genuinely needed affordable housing, genuinely needed residential housing, genuinely needed refurbishment of the local pub and genuinely needed investment and regeneration of the high street. As a combination, this redevelopment benefits vastly more people than can possibly be offended by its height or the dimensions of the community room.

We must also consider whether our objections to size and height and lack of trees is actually just because of a feeling that the Edwardian character of the area must be preserved at all costs - even though the immediate area surrounding the site is not actually Edwardian at all. You need to get over the bridge for that.

The Council will not approve an application that reduces the sunlight/daylight of the surrounding residences, especially those on Devonshire Close, so how does this application actually harm anyone?

I can't say the architectural style is the kind that sets my heart soaring, but I like it a whole lot more than that grotty car park and the dilapidated state of the Fox. Red brick is an expensive material and Im thrilled they design does not use ugly cladding of the kind used elsewhere and it's actually brick all the way round the development, not just the bits visible from the high street. Natural materials like the timber soffits do not go out of style. I daresay the perforated metal grills will look naff at some point but they can be easily replaced. And all that aside, my opinion of whether I like the building or not is way down the list of priorities of whether it is giving more to the community than it is taking away.

It's never going to be perfect, it's a question of whether it is good enough in exchange for all the other benefits. For me, it is. "
Colin Younger posted a reply
05 Apr 2018 15:51
No one that I know of objects to a better pub, neglected by owners and tenants for years, nor for the additional housing, but why on earth should we be expected to accept a flawed design?

Many people have tried to get the developers to do better, but though they trumpet support (not actually that we were consulted on THIS design) they ignore any reservations as if they did not exist, and indeed have taken back ground on the size of the function room and height of the main block. Just as an indication, they claim that the additional floor lessens the massing of th bock because it's a light finish, so in their physics more makes less!

It reinforces the idea that consultation and publc engagement is a one way street.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
05 Apr 2018 16:19
Flawed in your opinion. Accept it or let the place rot, that's what opposition has to decide.

Save for personal taste the application has minimal fault, hence why it has been recommended by planning officers, hopefully Enfield don't mess another decision up at Committee and let the building crumble.

Developers aren't charities, can't expect them to build the build YOU want regardless of viability, needs to be sensible compromise and it is impossible to argue what's proposed isn't better than what's there now.
Graham Bennett posted a reply
06 Apr 2018 09:50
I was surprised to see the planning officer's report claiming the 'scheme is of a high quality, sensitive in its approach'. Some of their arguments are very weak. For example it considers the community's needs for a function room will be met based on how often the existing room has been used when even the developers themselves have pointed out the poor state of the room. Whatever you think about the function room, my point is that the argument is flawed as past use cannot be a guide to how a better room would be used in the future.

My primary concern is the visual impact of the new buildings. Here the main justification seems to be that there are already buildings of a variety of heights around the Fox. But the assessment should have focused on the impact to the Fox itself. The scale and 'massing' of a development has always been a legitimate planning issue and I struggle to see how the new buildings could be considered to sit harmoniously in scale with the Fox. I'm not against development and I'm not against a modern design, but it needs to be of the right scale.

Because of the need for more housing, the government recently announced there will be changes to the planning rules that will make it easier for people to 'build upwards', adding additional floors. But it says that the developments should be "... in keeping with the roofline of other buildings in the area" and that they "must remain in keeping with the character of the local area". These changes are not yet in force but approval of the Fox application flies in the face of this new guidance.

I objected to the application, but in planning terms this is the only way to get changes to the details of the scheme. I did not object to developing part of the site for housing but set out particular objections such as the visual impact on the Fox. It's not the case that we have to accept developments as submitted or let the place rot - objections can lead to changes to an application with the aim of getting sympathetic developments that will make a pleasant environment for us as individuals and can be a crucial part in attracting shoppers to Palmers Green.

It's right to consider whether we could end up with another Broomfield House, but the situations are very different. Those who objected to converting Broomfield House to a carvery were objecting to the whole principle of the development and I've not seen anyone take this line with the Fox. The developers (Star pubs) have no obligation to the wider community but want to maximise their financial return, so it's not surprising that they seek to over-develop the site. That is precisely why we have a planning system so that wider issues are considered. Sadly, I can't see any realistic chance that the planning committee will go against the recommendations of their officers next week.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
06 Apr 2018 16:06
"Some of their arguments are weak". Funny. I think that of most of the objections.

Function room - officers rightly understand that a occasionally used room (once, maybe twice, a week max) that isn't always full cannot detract from the whole regeneration of the pub which will hopefully be busy every day of the week (unlike the current dump). Something more akin to the nicer pubs of Winchmore Hill.

Scale/massing/height - it was smaller/lower but the council wanted the affordable housing upped therefore recommended a floor was added. The way some people speak on here you'd think it was towering over the Fox and other neighbouring buildings which is simply untrue. What it IS a lot bigger than, is the horrible ugly car park wasteland that occupies the space now.

Objections can go on ad finitum, because everybody holds a different view and some people, notably objectors, want their views heard and acted upon over-riding all others. Whereas some of us happy to see a high quality redevelopment that offers much needed affordable housing and regeneration potential to a struggling high street.

The planning committee made a massive mistake going against officers recommendations previously (Trent Park Campus) and have to wait several years for a chance to get a second chance at getting it right, which they now thankfully have. Hopefully the Council have learnt from such a mistake and don't cave to individual minority pressure on this one either.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
11 Apr 2018 13:50
Success, it seems, as planning committee rightly listened to its officers, save some tweaks ref function room conditions I understand.

Maybe those younger N13/N14 residents that wrote in support like me helped balance out the older NIMBYs....
Colin Younger posted a reply
11 Apr 2018 17:53
Well, I wasn't going to raise this until I saw David Eden's posting.

To be clear, I support the idea of a refurbished Fox pub and that housing should be included in the project.

I went to the Planning Committee last night and was surprised how the balance of residents’ views was reported to the Committee. The Planning Officer referred only to the crude total figure of those supporting the Fox refurbishment. Support for refurbishment after years of neglect and poor service delivery is not surprising, but the extensive reservations from many groups about the scale of the development and the uncertain future of the function room were ignored. Two letters of support from individuals were quoted, but there was no reference to any letters raising concerns. The fact was glossed over that the general level of support was from consultations on a previous set of plans before the new floor was added and the future of the function room became cloudy.

Much was made of the appearance of the car park, but there was no reference to the fact that it was hidden by mature trees on all sides until they were suddenly felled - just before the development plans began to surface. In addition figures were quoted to show that the function room was under used. Given how decrepit it had become and how poorly it was serviced it's amazing that it was used at all. I was fascinated to hear head counts for use of the function room – I’ve certainly never seen anyone taking notes. If I was cynical I might wonder whether added to the neglect of the Fox itself, this was part of a softening up exercise by the developers. I don’t expect the developers to do other than adduce “evidence” to support their plans, but I might have expected a public authority to at least question it.

Then to top it all, the developers were allowed to read out in its entirety a long letter of support from an individual who seemed to know what people really wanted, ignoring the many who had raised concerns. The author - David Eden.

Contrary to any such claims, it has never been a simple NIMBY matter. It was a legitimate exercise of a right to express a view, which the developers encouraged, then ignored! Regretfully I suspect that this experience will do little to encourage constructive participation in future consultations.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
12 Apr 2018 17:48
Supporting an overall concept but refusing to accept minutiae detail and block the whole as a result is very different from backing a development.

Reality is it has local backing but a vocal minority oppose for minor detail reasons. Which is what in the past has stopped anything getting done.

The car park has been an eye sore as long as I can remember. Pollarding or not, it was still a pig and a waste of valuable space. As for function room usage - numbers have been debated on this very website in fact therefore it is a tad insincere to suggest this was a provocation from leftfield, not something widely discussed in the open domain.

Can't remember when Heineken bought the existing operator-owner of the pub, but it's been an awful shabby dump since I moved into the area in 2009.

The letter I wrote was not long (am happy to repost if desired) it simply set out the views I wanted to air at the committee meeting. If I had not been runover 2 months ago and still in a leg brace, boot and crutches, I would have attended. Part of it's purpose was to highlight the feeling shared by a number of my age cohort, that younger views and interests get over-ridden by more vocal maturer audiences who pertain to represent a lot more people's views than they actually do.

That a number of people did object, did not make them 'the many' versus 'the few' that supported. It's that kind of disingenuity that planners need to work hard to combat, in this case successfully.

We all have a right to express a view. Some did so in person. Some did remotely. All had opportunity, such is democracy. Qualified professionals made a recommendation and public officials put it all into a hat and decided upon an equitable answer.
Colin Younger posted a reply
05 May 2019 17:10
Following the acquisition of the Fox site by the dominvs group (yes it's a "v" not a "u") I wondered whether the application was going to proceed . However, I have just noticed a sign on the hoarding (image attached) which appears to repeat the appoved planning application summary. Note that it says that the building start date is 13/04/2020 and is scheduled to take 83 weeks, so if you want one of the promised gastropub meals, you will be hungry!
Adrian Day posted a reply
06 May 2019 10:11
I could hear diggers operating last week, and the window frames have been moved at the back of the Fox.
N Morris posted a reply
06 May 2019 22:00
It’s actually a notice of construction commencing, not a new planning application. 2020 is a typo and should read 2019. That means works should finish approx Nov 2020. The internal fit out of the Fox will be by the pub company so might be a little later opening than the flats but hopefully a matter of weeks/few months max
Darren Edgar posted a reply
14 May 2019 17:10
Is that the second time you've made a weird comment/joke about the use of a "V" (as in Bulgari/Bvlgari)??
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
30 Oct 2019 23:05


There have been fears expressed by some locals about the predicament of what's left of the Fox pub, with its upper storeys completely exposed to the elements at the back. Some even suggested that work on the new flats had stopped, but this is not actually the case, it's continuing, but currently isn't particularly visible from street level.

The developers, Dominvs, have said that they expect to "launch the development" in the spring, with the focus on the local market: "We do not believe in marketing developments of this nature overseas". Which sounds like good news, since new people actually living in the flats will provide an opportunity for our local shops (if they take the trouble to attract new customers, that is.)

The council is also reportedly keeping an eye on the development. An officer from the planning department was due to visit the site this week to look at samples of construction materials, and Councillor Dinah Barry has asked the Building Control Team to review any potential safety issues.
Adrian Day posted a reply
30 Oct 2019 23:33
I spoke to one of the guys taking the scaffolding down last week. He said the developers were bringing in a new building company - hence the hiatus.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
31 Oct 2019 11:15
All sounds completely fine and normal then.

Find us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Clicky