Page 296 - tmp

From: Lorraine Cordell
To: "Ned Johnson"
Subject: RE: RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: 11 January 2016 15:25:00

Dear Ned Johnson,

Thank you for the reply email and the update.

I have other information due to investigations I have done and due to speaking to people within the
area. That it was not just the one date in April 2014 there were events at Crown Road.

The dates I have been given that events took place at Crown Road are:

12th / 13th April 2014
19th / 20th April 2014 (confirmed)
26th / 27th April 2014

03rd / 04th May 2014
17th / 18th May 2014 (confirmed)
31st / 01st May and June 2014 (confirmed)

06th 07th 08th June 2014 (confirmed)
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

288