Listed Buildings Prosecutions Database Commentary

LISTED BUILDINGS PROSECUTIONS DATABASE COMMENTARY

Compiled by Bob Kindred MBE BA IHBC MRTPI

Edition 7 - January 2017 LISTED BUILDING PROSECUTIONS This resume is a response to requests from the courts and local planning authorities for additional information about individual cases beyond the standard short summary in the IHBC Listed Buildings Prosecutions Database [q.v.]. Where further material has been made available it is set out for ease of reference below in alphabetical order of the authorities concerned.

Readers should bear in mind the dates of cases. Penalties for offences under Section 7 (and more uncommonly S.59) of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 were increased by the Planning & Compensation Act 1990 with effect from 25th September 1991. Up to that date the maximum fine per offence in the Magistrates Court was £2,000 but after that date fines were increased to £20,000 (but were unlimited in the Crown Court).

References to English Heritage pre-date the formation of Historic England in April 2015 ______

Aylesbury Vale District Council [10-2014] Church Farm, Stratford Road, Nash Listed Grade 2. Unauthorised work was carried out to the 17th century farmhouse by dismantling the walls and removing the timbers leaving only two partly rebuilt chimneystacks intact. Mr. Simon Lascelles of St Albans, pleaded guilty at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court was fined £6,000 and costs of £24,401. The court found significant culpability on Mr. Lascelles’ part, as he was well aware of the statutory significance of the building in architectural and historical terms and knew when the works were executed that they were not authorised, and there was some attempt at financial gain.

The prosecution was initiated by the Council after enforcement officers were made aware of the work. In 2010, the Council had applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent further breaches of listed building control. This resulted in Mr. Lascelles providing a written undertaking to cease unauthorised works until outstanding applications for permission were determined. A temporary stop notice was issued in 2011 requiring the unauthorised works to stop. An Enforcement Notice was also issued requiring certain remedial steps to be undertaken. Later that year, an appeal against the council’s refusal to grant planning permission and listed building consent was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate, as was an appeal against the Enforcement Notice. (Source LPA)

Barnet London Borough Council [01-2000] Totteridge Green, Barnet, North London, Listed Grade 2. Unauthorised alterations were made to two windows in this listed house. The defendant, a celebrated TV doctor had replaced two dilapidated 1950s

1 metal frame windows in a three storey detached house with purpose made double glazed sashes in November 1998. Barnet LBC considered this had a most adverse effect on the listed building. The defendant argued that there had been a hotchpotch of windows when she moved in in 1988 and the two in question had been in a parlous state with gaps around the sills. Because of an early guilty plea the defendant was fined £2,000 for each window and costs of £850. (Source: The Press, Barnet).

Barnet London Borough Council [01-2015] No.1 Wildwood Road, Barnet, North London Listed Grade 2. Unauthorised alterations were made to this house of 1912, to the designs of G. L. Sutcliffe, listed in 1996 and situated within the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area. One of a pair of houses making strongly asymmetrical compositions with scattered fenestration and features taken from the Vernacular Revival styles linked by a garden wall and garages, designed by G. L. Sutcliffe in 1912. The house is one of an excellent group Nos. 1-15 by Sutcliffe; all the houses being paired and designed to a restricted range of complementary plan forms. The owner Mr. Maurice Lawee bought the house for £3.7m in 2008 and in 2010 was granted Listed Building Consent for an extension to his basement, which included installing a lift, and a garage conversion. Complaints were received by the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust that the owner was carrying out unauthorised work on the property and these were found to include the building of two large conservatories, removing inside walls, the original staircase and doors, and joining outside buildings into the main structure of the house. There were also complaints that the brickwork had been harmed. Conservation officers visited the site and required the works to cease, however notwithstanding repeated assurances by Mr. Lawee and his architect that they would stop, further visits showed the works had carried on regardless.

Wildwood Road, Barnet before (left) and after (right)

The solicitor from Barnet Council's shared legal practice, HB Public Law contended that “Irreversible damage has been caused to the brickwork and outhouse and original features appear to have been destroyed or removed from the building.” Mr. Lawee, pleaded guilty to four offences of carrying out unauthorised work to a listed building at Willesden Magistrates' Court in January 2015 in a prosecution brought by Barnet Council and was fined £45,000 and ordered to pay the council’s costs of £14,000. The owner subsequently applied for retrospective consent for the works, some of which were approved but others were refused. The architectural adviser for the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust, David Davidson, remarked that: “The suburb is an area of international significance in the history of town planning and architecture, and alterations to its buildings need to be carefully considered in order to retain its special characteristics”. (Source: LPA)

Braintree District Council [08-1990] Foxhearth Hall, The Street, Foxearth, Essex, Listed Grade 2*. Built in c.1300 the house had been the subject of few adaptations of modifications. In the 15th century the open aisled hall was floored to give 2 accommodation at first floor. Unusually the Hall also had an extra floor inserted to give an attic area accessed by an oak solid tread stair. The high quality of workmanship, extent of the surviving ancient timberwork and rare attic floor was responsible for the Grade 2* listing. Following complaints to the local planning authority from the previous owner, the local planning authority visited the building in August 1989 and the new owner was advised to stop work. A year-long investigation in conjunction with the Historic buildings Specialists at Essex County Council concluded with the owner Mr. Raymond Pluck pleaded guilty to 10 counts including removing the attic floor; the solid tread staircase and ancient timbers as well as the removal of partition walls and ceilings on the first floor; removal of the partition to the staircase enclosure in the hall; removal of wall linings and two fireplaces and removal of the front porch. The defendant who owned at least one other Listed building (on which unauthorised work had also been undertaken) was un-cooperative throughout and was a maximum (at that time) of £2,000 on each of eight counts and £1,000 on each of the remainder by Halstead Magistrates Court; totaling £18,000 with £5,158.60 costs. The defendant was given seven days to pay. (Source: LPA)

Braintree District Council [10-2000] Hole Farm, Kelvedon, Listed Grade 2* The building was described by the person responsible for listing it, John McCann, as a remarkably unaltered specimen of a mediaeval hall house. The owner undertook The unauthorised replacement of windows; removal of an early staircase, cupboard and door; installation of a new staircase; removal of one fireplace and alteration of another, and cutting of a tie beam. The owner was found guilty on four counts and was fined £2,000 with £2,150 costs. There was some pre-trial plea- bargaining as a result of which some charges were dropped. The owner had also instructed the unauthorised shotblasting of soot-blackened timbers for which the contractor Aquablast Ltd was fined £1,000. Essex County Council remarked that although the owner would have to change all the windows, most of the damage could not be rectified. (Source: LPA)

Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [08-2015] Llanwenarth House, Grade 2. Built in c.1532 in sandstone but remodeled in the 18th century, the seven bedroom manor house in the picturesque Usk valley was where Irish composer Cecil Alexander is thought to have written the lyrics where Irish composer Cecil Alexander wrote the lyrics to the hymn 'All Things Bright and Beautiful' with lines thought to have been inspired by the River Usk, which flows close to the property boundary. The building was listed in 1956. Property developer Mr. Kim Gregory Davies carried out £1million-worth of work and about sixty alterations without consent. After Davies had carried out the work, officials from the National Park Authority received an anonymous tip-off in 2009 that unlawful renovation work was being carried out. They visited and tried to gain access to the property several times but were refused entry by Davies, who locked the gates to keep them out. A warrant was issued and Council officers eventually managed to gain access in 2012 and discovered that substantial changes had been undertaken including the removal of 18th century Regency features and replacement with 'mock Tudor' interiors including replacing historic doors with modern 'Tudoresque' ones, taking up parquet flooring and laying down modern tiles in their place, removing historic timber windows and turning a bedroom into a bathroom, hard cement had been used for the renovation work instead of lime mortar. The defendant also installed a mosaic-clad spa bath, altered the coach house and courtyard taking up the old cobblestones replacing these with flagstones. The headstones of three children who had died more than 100 years ago - David, 4, Rosie, 3, and 11-month-old Thomas taken from the village of Llechryd, near Rhymney had been used as wall plaques for interior decoration. Council officers were unable to determine when this macabre feature was installed, but found cut up gravestones in the back garden. Davies had originally insisted he had done nothing wrong and claimed that a since departed planning officer had given him verbal permission to carry out the work and he had saved the building from ruin as it was falling down when he bought it in 2007 for £675,000. Prosecutor Nicholas Haggan QC told Newport Crown Court that listed building specialist Michael Davis had described the alterations as being the “worst example” he had seen during his 25-year career. He said: “The works carried out by this defendant were extensive and affected every part of the exterior and

3 interior of the property. No application for any listed building consent was made before, during or after the works had been carried out. Most of what was originally in that property had been stripped out and dumped. Layers of history were ripped out and discarded. The impact of the works has been immensely damaging. The soft feel of the original had been replaced with a very harsh and stark appearance.” After five days of legal argument Davies pleaded guilty to five offences having failed in a succession of applications to have the prosecution halted. Judge Daniel Williams told Davies: “What you did to the property was criminal. You turned it into a palace comparable to that of an Iron Curtain dictator. You’ve done everything to make life as difficult as possible for the prosecution. You played for high stakes and you’ve lost.” Judge Williams imposed a £60,000 fine to be paid by September 15th 2015 and that £240,000 of the prosecution costs of £440,000 were to be paid in £40,000 installments over a six-month period. The defendant claimed not have the money but the Judge ordered that failure to pay the fine in full, Davies would result in a 20-month prison sentence. (Source: The Times 19 August 2015, Wales Today & several other national & regional news outlets) Further photos of the interior at : http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/childrens-gravestones-decorated-all-things-9881355

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [10-2013] Marsh Hall Barn, Lands Head End, Northowram Halifax, Listed Grade 2*. The building was listed in November 1954 and was dated 1626 but perhaps incorporating older work and had subsequently been divided into three dwellings. On 28th May 2012 the Council’s Planning Services was informed that the barn

4 was in process of being demolished. A site visit made same day confirmed the extent of demolition Mr. Mark Hillas was present and confirmed to officers that he was the director of M.Hillas (Properties) Ltd and had given permission for the work. In his defense Mr Hillas stated that listed building consent had been granted for conversion to a dwelling, but the Council maintained that demolition had gone far beyond what had been approved by listed building consent. As such this was considered a clear breach of control and the work done had detrimentally affected the historic and architectural character. The Council also served a Temporary Stop Notice on Hillas to prevent further unauthorised work taking place.

At Calder Magistrates Court on 2nd October 2013, M. Hillas Properties Ltd (of which Mr. Mark Hillas of Thorn Tree Farm, Shelf Halifax was a Director) was fined £3000 plus £1000 contribution to costs for the partial demolition of the listed barn. (Source: LPA)

5 Camden London Borough Council [10-1993] 31 Doughty Street, London N1 Listed Grade 2. One of a terrace of ten houses built by Slaton and Golden between 1794 and 1810. Consent had been given to St Pancras Housing Association demolish the interiors of Nos. 29 & 30 Doughty Street but this did not apply to No.31. Architect John Melvin was fined £2,000 (the then maximum figure) and the Housing Association fined £1,000 with costs of £5,500 for retaining the façade but gutting and totally rebuilding the interiors. The local planning authority was initially alerted by English Heritage that everything except the floor structure and staircase of No.31 had been stripped from behind the front wall. (Source PlanningWeek 14/10/1993)

Camden London Borough Council [1995] 40 Chalcot Road, London N1 Unlisted in a Conservation Area. Persistent failure to comply with an Enforcement Notice for eleven years led to a jail sentence for the owner of the Fanaari Greek Restaurant, a Victorian property in the Primrose Hill Conservation Area. Camden had issued the Enforcement Notice in May 1984 but in spite of an initial fine of £150 with £250 costs and a court order in 1986 to comply, the owner Mr. George Onoufriou failed to do so. Magistrate decided the owner should be jailed until the fine was paid having been told the owner had sold the restaurant for £200,000 and was about to retire to Cyprus with the £2,000 he had left after paying off his debts. The defendant was taken into custody but was released three-quarters of an hour later after his £5,000 fine and costs of £794 had been paid in cash. (Source: local newspaper cutting)

Cherwell District Council [08-1994] Kings Arms Hotel, Market Square, Bicester, Listed Grade 2. Listed in March 1970. Listed building consent was obtained for internal alterations but not for the unauthorised replacement of an 18th Century Venetian window to the courtyard. The designer Mr. Lawrence Bacon and his contractor claimed that the

6 window was in such poor condition it needed entirely replacing, but this was disputed by the Council’s conservation specialist who also concluded that the window was not a faithful facsimile and a Listed Building Enforcement Notice was served.

Magistrates did not accept the designer’s plea that he had acted in good faith and was fined £2,000 with £375 costs. Ind Coope Retail, the owners of the building were not subject to any proceedings. (Source LPA)

Cherwell District Council [02-2005] Palmer’s Cottage, Hethe, Oxfordshire, Listed Grade 2. Considered by Bicester magistrates Court on 12 May 2004. The defendant admitted carrying out the unauthorized alterations but in mitigation stated that he had done the work himself, agreed that he should have obtained approval and that he was in financial hardship with debts of £13,000 (excl. his mortgage and a low annual income of £25,000 as a carpenter and requested a community penalty. The magistrates rejected this and after requesting further information of the defendant’s income, expenditure and mortgage, fined the defendant £5,000 with costs of £350 with the fine to be paid at £350 per month. (Source: LPA)

Cherwell District Council [02-2005] 17-18 & 19 North Bar, Banbury, Oxfordshire, Unlisted in a conservation area. The buildings were demolished on behalf of Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) Ltd by BMH Contractors (Clifton) Ltd. Both companied pleased guilty on 10th February 2005 at Bicester Magistrates Court but a plea of mitigation was accepted that the demolition was done in good faith and in the interests of health and safety. Had this not been so, the magistrates indicated that the case would have been remitted to the Crown Court for sentencing. Persimmon were fined £15,000 for each of two offences plus £11,297 costs shared equally with the contractor, while BMH were fined £13,000 for each of two offences. The contactor subsequently appealed to the Crown Court in June 2005 against the sentence with the fine reduced to £6,000 in each count. The judge stated that although the prosecution was properly brought his main objective was to differentiate between a nationally recognized developer and a relatively small contractor. (Source: LPA)

Cheshire West & Chester Council [08-2011] St Werburgh’s Church, Chester, Listed Grade 2. The defendant pleaded guilty on his first appearance in court to theft of lead from the church and did not contest the level of compensation for the damage caused. The local planning authority Conservation Officer Marie Smallwood prepared a full and detailed Heritage Crime Impact Statement. This received favorable comment from the Crown Prosecution Service. The result was a Community Order for 12 months; a curfew requirement for 8 weeks electronically monitored (20:00 to 08:00 hours) and £200 compensation for the damage. (Source: English Heritage)

7 Dacorum Borough Council [08-2010] Elmtree Farm, Gadston Road, Hemel Hepstead, Listed Grade 2. The owner, Mr. Nicholas Harvey was successfully prosecuted at St Albans Crown Court for fifteen separate offences to the largely 17th and 18th Century house. Works included for example: removal of plasterwork, particularly from the wall to the c.1720s staircase; removal of plasterwork to the entrance lobby; replacement of lath and plaster partitions with plasterboard; dismantling and re-erecting the staircase destroying its historic patina, etc. The Judge stated of the defendant’s actions that “The degree of damage is considerable… [the local planning authority] said that you systematically swept through the entire building, removing elements, concealing or damaging others & introducing false elements”. Many changes were quite subtle using second-had timber in three rooms. Most door architraves had been replaced, in some cases concealing carpenters’ marks on the adjacent timber framing. Two chimneypieces had been lost. The defendant was said by the local authority to have spent £40,000 to defend the action. (Source: LPA). A detailed explanation of the works undertaken (with illustrations) and the consequences for the building and for historic buildings policy generally are explained in the IHBC journal Context No.126 September 2012 pp.6-9.

Denbighshire County Council [01-2008] Corporation Arms PH, Castle Street, Ruthin, Listed Grade 2. Punch Taverns replaced nine leaded-light windows with plain glass in this 17th century listed building despite being told not to proceed without consent by Council officers. It had been observed that one of the leaded windows had been removed in early 2005 and the other windows and other internal and external alterations had been carried out later that year without consent. The company originally denied the offences but changed its plea before its court appearance and was fined £11,000 with £7,674 costs by Prestatyn Magistrates Court for what the chairman of the bench described as “a blatant and prolonged disregard of the rules regarding a listed building”. (Source: Daily Press cutting p.7, 16/01/2008)

East Devon District Council [10-2015] Talewater Farm, Talaton nr. Ottery St Mary, Devon, Listed Grade 2. Talewater Farm is a 16th century thatched farmhouse with 17th century alterations. The owner Mr Barry Anthony Wright a builder with 25 years experience had applied to the Council for listed building consent to carry out substantial renovation and related building works but this had been granted subject to stringent pre-commencement conditions regarding specifications and materials. In September 2014 Mr. Wright applied to discharge all of the conditions, following which the Council’s Principal Conservation Officer made a site visit and saw that works had already been carried out and were contrary to the approved plans. At Exeter Magistrates Court on 28 October 2015 the defendant pleaded guilty to a total of seven charges for unauthorised works including the removal of two 17th century windows; removal of an oak bressummer beam above a fireplace; non compliance with some of the conditions attached to listed building consent granted in 2010 that required agreement of the specification of plaster and render and specification for the repairs to two plank and muntin screens. The farmhouse had been in the ownership of the Wright family for many generations and that they knew the building was listed. Mr. Wright pleaded guilty to a further offence, regarding his failure to comply with an enforcement notice issued in 2010 requiring him to cease living in a holiday cottage, known as The Cellar, at Talewater Farm. The seven offences each received a fine of £2,500 (total £17,500), plus £2,500 prosecution costs, plus £120 victim surcharge. The total of fines and costs were: £20,120. (Source LPA)

East Hampshire District Council [02-2006] 8 Sussex Road, Petersfield, Hampshire, Listed Grade 2. The owner, who had received consent in April 2005 for some internal ground floor alterations to this 18th century cottage, listed in 1973, then went on to do substantial further unauthorised works without Listed Building Consent. These included: replacing the glazing to the front and rear doors with double-glazed frosted units; removing three internal walls; installing two new rooflights in the kitchen and two new rooflights in the attic; installing fitted wardrobes in a bedroom and building a staircase from the first floor to the attic. The defendant pleaded guilty to one offence of carrying out alterations to a Listed Building without the necessary permission in a manner that affected the building's architectural or historic interest and was fined £12,000 with £480 costs. Had he not done so Aldershot magistrates would have set the fine at £15,000, but also took into consideration that the defendant failed to stop the works when instructed to do so and might also have profited from the works - although the LPA did submit any evidence on this point. (Source: LPA)

East Northamptonshire District Council [01-2013] Rectory Drive, Twywell, unlisted within a conservation area. This case involved the demolition of a row of three cottages that were unlisted but within the Twywell Conservation Area. In a case brought in January 2013, Mr. Dickson a builder pleaded guilty and was fined £5,000 with £2,500 costs. Regrettably, before the demolition took place, the terrace had featured in an English Heritage best practice publication, and (prior to the conservation area being designated) the Council had negotiated a good scheme for the retention/conservation of the cottages after refusing a scheme for replacement by two large executive- style houses The magistrates commented that as the defendant had a number of years’ experience in this industry he should have dealt with the situation more effectively than he did and his actions were beyond negligent. The defendant had not informed the Council before or after the demolition and the demolition was brought to the Council’s attention by contact from a third party. The magistrates also considered that the structural condition of the properties must have been obvious to the defendant and therefore the correct course of action would have been to have fenced off the area and informed the Council forthwith. (Source LPA)

East Staffordshire District Council [05-2000] Rangemore Hall, Barton-under-Needwood Litchfield, Staffordshire, Listed Grade 2* now known as The Lawns, listed February 1986. The owners in c.2000 made fraudulent claims that marble fireplaces worth £375,000 had ben stolen from the house when in fact they had been sold. The family decked the house out in an 18th Century French style and the fireplaces were antiques from that era and had been incorporated when it had been rebuilt for Michael Bass, head of the brewery Bass, Ratcliff and Gretton.

9 The house, which had first been occupied in 1860 was reconstructed and extended in Italianate style in 1898-1901 for a visit of King Edward VII in 1902. Mr. Manjinder Gill and his two brothers bought a wing of the house at auction in 1997 and then insured it for £2.5M. Mr. Gill initially appealed at a public inquiry into the service of five Listed Building Enforcement Notices served by the Council to secure the return of the fireplaces. Gill told the inquiry that he had sold the fireplaces for £45,000 to a New York-based antique dealer, Chantelle O’Sullican because he did not need consent to remove them and needed the cash because he was bankrupt. It was understood at the time that the fireplaces had been shipped to the Republic of Ireland. Mr. Mike Taylor of English Heritage at Birmingham stated that 'The fireplaces were pieces of enormous rarity. They were of extremely high artistic quality and considerable craftsmanship’.

Staffordshire police took over the investigation when it became clear that an attempt had been made to obtain the full insurance value of the fireplaces by deception and successfully prosecuted under the Fraud Act. Stafford Crown Court was told that In January 1998, six months before the burglary, Manjinder Gill went to see an antiques dealer in New York, taking photographs of the fireplaces and asking £100,000. The dealer came to England and offered £50,000, which was accepted. A man was then flown from Dublin to rip the fireplaces out ready for shipment. The three brothers then tried to claim money back on insurance. In June 1998, a Council officer made an appointment to view Rangemoor Hall but two days before his visit, Parmjit Gill claimed the fireplaces and some jewelry had been stolen when in fact there had been no burglary and the fireplaces had been removed at least ten weeks earlier and sold. The court was told that the brothers might well have intended to wait a little longer before reporting the alleged burglary had the Council’s conservation officer not made an appointment to visit. Judge John Shand was told that the conservation officer and insurance company had became suspicious and no money was paid out. In the Crown Court, Manjinder and Parmjit Gill admitted conspiracy to defraud. Kuldip Gill denied the charge but a jury at an earlier trial had found him guilty. Manjinder, who organised the deception, was sentenced to 12 months in prison and his brothers were both sentenced to nine months. (Source: LPA and Planning 21/01/2000)

Epping Forrest District Council [02-1996] Hainault Hall, Lambourne Road, Chigwell Row, Essex, Listed Grade 2. House dating from the late 18th century extended in the 19th century and listed in June 1954. The owner Mr. M. Sandhu (aka Singh) was fined £3,500 at Snaresbrook Crown Court in February 1996 for six counts of unauthorised alterations including the replacement of six sash windows, ten internal window surrounds, six pairs of internal window shutters, a fireplace surround and two cupboards. The trial lasted for nine days with the Council incurring costs of £20,000, however following the

10 unanimous decision of the jury; the Court reduced this to £17,500 to be met by the defendant. (Source LPA)

Exmoor National Park Authority [10-2011] 2 The Ball, Dunster, Somerset, Listed Grade 2. The late 18th or early 19th century dwelling was listed in August 1983. The owner had failed to comply with three Listed Building Enforcement Notices (fine £3,000) concerning various unauthorised works including, cutting of main roof timbers (fined £5,000), removal of staircase (fined £5,000), insertion of new staircase (fined £5000), and removal of 2 doors and doorways (fined £4,000) overall: £22,000 with costs of £25,000.The Magistrates took account of the guilty pleas but said that the case demonstrated the owner's disregard for planning regulations and procedures. (Source: LPA)

Hackney London Borough Council [08-1994] 135 Stoke Newington Church Street, London, Listed Grade 2. The absentee owner Mr. Marcou was successfully prosecuted at Wells Street Magistrates Court on three counts of unauthorised alterations and fined £3,000 for works to the roof; £3,000 for works to the flank wall and £1,000 for works to the rear addition; with £2,800 costs. He appealed against his conviction at Borough Crown Court in August 1994. At the hearing, the judge decided that the works to the flank wall were related to the roof and consequently the separate charge was dropped. He did however, uphold the decision and original fine for unauthorised work to the roof and also found in the Council’s favor regarding the rear addition, doubling the associated fine to £2,000. The defendant was also ordered to pay a further £2,500 in costs [£5,300 in total]. (Source: LPA)

135 Stoke Newington Church Street, London

Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council [12-2011] 39 Cloncurry Street, Fulham, Unlisted in a Conservation Area. A builder Mr. Piers Rance had submitted a planning application in April 2007 to extend his house including excavation of a new basement underneath it but before the local authority was able to determine whether or not to grant planning permission for these extensions, the defendant demolished the house and began digging out a new basement area. Mr. Rance stated that he had started stripping out this building while waiting for the planning approval and had removed a very unattractive 1960s back addition which it transpired had become a support for the rest of the house. The flank and rear walls were claimed to be unstable and consequently Mr. Rance’s surveyor and structural engineers advised that these posed an immediate danger of collapse and needed to be demolished. Mr. Rance also argued that the basement extension was a common feature of refurbishment projects in Fulham, and had nothing to do with the demolition. The defendant initially mounted an “abuse of process hearing" against the Council which he lost, and a the trial in the Magistrates Court, which he also lost, with Judge Clark determining that the offence was so serious it should be referred to the Crown Court for sentencing. In the Crown Court, the defendant sought an out of time appeal against the original decision, but the Judge rejected this. The defendant then changed his legal team and his new QC requested the Judge to stand down because it was claimed some of his comments were be biased against their defendant. To avoid the possibility of an appeal the first Judge stepped down and was replaced by Judge Denniss. He allowed the defendant to appeal the original trial decision but this appeal was lost in October 2011. The Council sought confiscation of the defendant’s assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, arguing that there was a difference between the purchase price of the original property (£2m) and its finally rebuilt value (£3.4M). Judge Denniss rejected the claim concluding that destruction of property does not create a benefit and confiscation would be abuse of process because the replacement/reinstatement was being built with planning permission. The judge considered it was extremely unlikely that the defendant would have purchased a property for £2.2m without carrying out a structural survey unless he always had the intention of demolishing it for financial gain and decided that the case was not appropriate for a confiscation order. Furthermore there has been no warning by the Council of any intention to confiscate. In December 2011 Mr. Rance fined £120,000 at Isleworth Crown Court and ordered to pay the Council’s estimated £100,000 legal costs. The defendant was required to pay his own costs, which the Council

12 estimated were in excess of £300,000 but the fine and costs were subsequently reduced on appeal to £50,000 and £40,000 respectively. (Source: LPA and on-line Local Government Lawyer - http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8839%3Aco urt-hits-builder-with-record-p120k-fine-for-demolishing-house-in-conservation- area&catid=63%3Aplanning-articles&q=&Itemid=31

39 Cloncurry St, Fulham

39 Cloncurry Street, Fulham

Harrogate Borough Council [12-2001] Thorpe Underwood Hall, Thorpe Underwood, York, Listed Grade 2*. Listed in January 1980, a country house used as a school dated 1902-03 by W.H. Brierley for F.W. Slingsby. Red brick in English bond. Mr. Brian Richard Martin, Chairman of the Governors of Queen Ethelburga’s School was fined £6,000 with £4,000 costs at Harrogate Magistrates Court comprising £4,000 for unauthorised alterations involving the removal of a chimneybreast within the second floor roof space and £2,000 for the consequent removal of the 4m. high chimney stack, carried out in or around August 1998. As both sides had employed Barristers, the Council was also awarded £30,000 costs. (Source LPA)

Harrogate Borough Council [04-2014] Copt Hewick Hall, Copt Hewick, near Ripon, North Yorkshire, Listed Grade 2. This small country house, dating from c.1775 within a designed landscape of the same era was built for Thomas Corner, twice Mayor of Ripon. Estate agents Blenkin and Co described the house prior to its sale as having period features which had been "painstakingly preserved", adding that no detail had escaped the (then) owners’ meticulous programme of works. The house was acquired for Mrs. Valeria Sykes the mother of one of the defendants, for £4.5m in December 2011. The Northern Echo reported that Mrs. Sykes' had been married to property tycoon Mr. Paul Sykes creator of Sheffield Meadowhall shopping centre. Following the purchase her son Mr. Richard Sykes had instructed and project managed the works. When an officer from Harrogate Borough Council visited the Hall after the sale, substantial alterations were noted. These included the removal of decorative mouldings, doors, window shutters, floors and ceilings without listed building consent. Historic “floating bubble” glass windows were completely lost after they were replaced with modern flat glass for clearer views. Despite repeated warnings from the Council to stop the works, the renovations continued over an 18- month period. Mr. Sykes a chartered surveyor and a director of West Parks Services Ltd; Mr. Nicholas Hull, the builder; and their respective companies West Park Services Ltd; and, Thermotech Building Maintenance Ltd, all pleaded guilty to six offences at Harrogate Magistrates Court on Tuesday 29th April 2014.

The defendant’s QC Paul Greaney QC stated that the house had not been perfectly preserved and Mrs. Sykes had even found some MDF doors after moving in. His defendant had not been "cocking a snook" at the council. "It is not a building of the highest significance like Castle Howard" (…) "The drive of the defendant was to return the hall to its former glory, certainly not to turn it into some sort of Premiership footballer's pad” (…) "No expense has been spared to bring that dream into reality." Richard Sykes from Asenby, North Yorkshire was fined £26,010 and ordered to pay £14,000 costs. West Park Services Limited, based in Thirsk were fined £14,010 with £12,000 costs. Nicholas Hull was fined £2,660 and ordered to pay £3,000 costs. Thermotech Building Maintenance Limited, based in Harrogate were fined £6,000 with £7,000 costs. In addition Mr. Ian Saddington of quantity surveyors Derrick Kershaw Partnership, who had arranged for windows to be removed from the Gardener’s Cottage, a listed building in the grounds, was to be formally cautioned for his involvement. (Sources: LPA & The Northern Echo)

Harrow London Borough Council [03-2001] Warren House Estate, Stanmore. Locally listed within a conservation area. For failing to comply with an Enforcement Notice for unauthorised alterations to their unlisted property in the Kerry Avenue Conservation Area, Stanmore, Mr. Shahjahan Ahmade and his estranged wife Mrs. Durdana Ahmade were fined £2,100 with £1,359 costs. The property was one of six distinctive houses, all locally listed built in 1937 for Sir John Fitzgerald, to challenge the perceived blandness of suburban architecture. Known initially as the Warren House Estate, they were designed by leading architect Gerald Lacoste MBE, FRIBA, FRSA in the International style, combining geometric lines and curves with contemporary building materials. Lacoste (1908-1983) qualified in 1930, aged 22, and for two years was the youngest qualified person to hold the title ARIBA. The defendants bought the house in 1994 and it was one of several in that road and Valencia Road to fall within the conservation area designated in 1980 and covered by an Article 4 Direction. The distinctive Crittal steel windows were replaced with uPVC units and the characteristic smooth white render was replaced with pebble-dash. In February 1998 an Enforcement Notice was authorized and although the pebble-dash was removed and the defendants negotiated a change back to the original window pattern, the work was not carried out. In January 2001, the Council issues a summons for non-compliance and at Harrow Magistrates Court, Mrs. Ahmade accepted responsibility for non-compliance, pleased guilty and was fined £450 for each summons with £365 costs. Mr. Ahmade appeared at the same court in March 2001 and pleaded not guilty. His defense that he had done all he could within his financial circumstances was rejected by the magistrates after hearing that he owned five other houses and had nearly £1M in assets. He was convicted and fined £600 for each summons with £994 costs. (Source LPA).

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council [11-1991] Ivy House Farm. Odstone, Leicestershire, Listed Grade 2. This mid-18th century two-storey red brick and plain tiled roofed property, with attached barn, was listed in 1989. On 31st May 1991, the owner was told to stop demolishing the listed barn by the Council's Enforcement Officer. The relevant legislation was subsequently explained to the owner at two further site meetings and in writing. In September 1991, the owner undertook further unauthorised demolition to the barn and by this time had palleted over 10,000 bricks and sold them to a reclamation company for £1,500. The defendant appeared before the Hinckley Magistrates in November 1991 on two charges and pleaded not guilty on the grounds that the barn was not listed and was in a dangerous condition. He was found guilty on both charges, was fined £250 for each offence and ordered to pay £500 towards the Council's costs of £2,150. The Magistrates did not take into account the financial gain that the defendant had made from selling the bricks, nor did they make any reference to rebuilding of the barn. (Source: LPA)

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council [1992-3] The Old Rectory, Rectory Lane, Market Bosworth, Leicestershire, Listed Grade 2. This was a particularly lengthy case that at one stage involved injunctions to prevent additional unauthorised alterations to the property; and three appearances at Hinckley Magistrates Court, prior to a nine-day appearance at Leicester Crown Court. The owner purchased the property at auction in September 1990 but did not completed the finance and legal transactions until the day before the property was Listed in November 1990. However, the owner stated several workmen had been employed to work on the house prior to date of listing but had then coincidentally stopped work for a year; recommencing in January 1992, a few days prior to the Council finding nine workmen undertaking unauthorised works. The case centered on the timing and the amount of work the owner and his workmen had undertaken, and whether this was carried out prior to the building being listed or subsequently. Substantial works had been undertaken involving the removal of some 60 tons of masonry, a number of chimneybreasts, fireplaces, staircases and walls and the construction of new walls, ceilings, floors, raised platforms, and the filling-in of windows and doorways. The owner, advised by his solicitor, invoked the right of silence under questioning. Following the identification of the unauthorised works by the Council in January 1992, the owner and his architect made several written statements and completed a Request for Information but all these statement were withdrawn by his legal advisors as being incorrect and not a true record when eventually presented in the Crown Court.

16 The owner’s case rested on the fact that the bulk of the work undertaken predated the listing in January 1991 and comprised all the work not covered by the Council’s and English Heritage’s record photographs. The owner pleaded guilty to two charges of unauthorised alteration of the Rectory’s substantial outbuildings (situated within a conservation area). This work had been witnessed by several Council officers and had involved an Injunction by the Council in October 1992 after the owner had refused to stop work on the building for ten months. He was fined £500 for each offence and had to stand his own legal costs. The Council had to meet its own costs for these two charges. The defendant’s considerable financial resources were not taken into account. The third charge relating to the major part of the unauthorised works, took up most of the nine days in the Crown Court and the Council’s case rested predominantly on eye witness accounts of the building at the time of listing. This evidence was disputed by the defendant, his timeshare employees, and several new workmen not previously known to the Council officers, and handwritten receipts for payment of these works prior to listing which contradicted the English Heritage Listing Inspector's account of the building’s condition at that time but the Council was unable to prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt and on the advice of the Judge this charge was dropped. The Judge determined that each party should pay for their own costs on the two proven cha Council’s case amounting to £45,000 without right of appeal. The court also ordered the reconstruction of the demolished features inside The Rectory, but not of the outbuildings and this was estimated would cost in the order of £25,000. (Source: LPA)

Huntingdonshire District Council [03-2003] The Gables, Spaldwick, Listed Grade 2. A late 17th or early 18th century house with 19th century additions and alterations; had a whitewashed timber-frame and brick façade with a plain-tile roof. Listed in February 2000 and described in the list as forming part of a significant group of listed buildings in High Street. After granting Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent for extensions and alterations it came to the attention of the local planning authority that unauthorised works were carried out including the removal of paint from the front elevation. This was despite a condition of consent requiring the method to be approved in writing beforehand and by the provision of a sample panel.

The work was carried out without this condition having been discharged and, in the view of the Conservation Officer the bricks were irrevocably damaged as a result of the works, such that the works had compromised their longevity. He produced a witness statement under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to this effect.The works were being supervised by an architect and carried out by a

17 builder who was in turn using sub-contractors. The owners, architect, and builder were interviewed under the provisions of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As a result a decision was taken to prosecute the owners who pleaded guilty and were each fined £2,500 with costs of £2,000. (Source CLG)

Huntingdonshire District Council [09-2009] The Gables 31 High Street Ramsey, Listed Grade 2*. The building dates in part from the 13th Century and may have originally been associated with Ramsey Abbey. The original 13th Century timber framed hall was extended and altered in the late 16th Century and then altered again in the 1800s when it became a private home and doctors surgery for Ramsey and remained so for over 150 years. The unauthorised works involved the total gutting of the original surgery annex which forms part of the principal house by removing internal walls, doors, fittings and a fireplace and filling in the connecting door opening; the demolition and removal of other internal features including walls, floors and doors; an internal wall and part of the ceiling in the cellar; and removal of a slate lined water cistern. Numerous works were also undertaken to a range of outbuildings, which it transpired the developers intended to convert into residential accommodation without either planning permission or listed building consent (and were the subject to separate enforcement action to return the buildings to their original condition). Magistrates found the defendant developers London Property Conversions Ltd guilty of two offences and fined the company £ 5,500 with £3,500 costs. (Source: LPA)

18 Huntingdonshire District Council [11-2016] Manor Farmhouse, 15 High Street Spaldwick Huntingdonshire, Listed Grade 2. This case involved contempt of court proceedings relating to a Grade 2 listed building dating in part to 1546 and located between two Grade 2* listed buildings. The owner purchased the property September 2014 and within 2 weeks of ownership had removed external render and lath and plaster ceilings within the property but declined to cease works when requested to do so. The Council then sought and was awarded a temporary injunction to prevent any further damage occurring to the building. The injunction fell away on 15th October 2014 when the owner gave an undertaking to the County Court not to not to carry out any work to the building without first obtaining listed building consent or the prior approval of the local authority. Despite his undertaking to the court the owner continued to do works to the property without consent and despite further warnings from the Local Authority. On the 11th November 2016 the owner appeared in front of Peterborough County Court where he admitted to 20 individual breaches of the undertaking he had given to the court in 2014 including the removal of wattle and daub panels, the removal of windows, internal walls, internal fixtures and the insertion of new second floor accommodation. Contempt of court proceedings are considered very serious and the owner was found guilty and given a 6 weeks suspended sentence and ordered to pay £25,000 towards the Councils costs. The Council would then seek to serve Listed Building Enforcement Notices to secure the reinstatement of the fabric of the building and reserved the right to seek further prosecutions under the Act if necessary. (Source: LPA)

Ipswich Borough Council [09-1997] The Old Bell Inn, Stoke Street, Ipswich. Listed Grade 2 in 1951. One of the oldest pubs in Ipswich. An internal cross-passage spandrel panel and mediaeval timber-framing dating from c.1540 and a 19th century door frame had been damaged by the installation of unauthorised insulated pipework for beer chiller equipment located elsewhere in the building requiring long pipe runs. The owner Tolly Brewery pleaded guilty but as this was a first offence the company was fined £3,000 with £350 costs. The attendant local newspaper publicity was considered a significant embarrassment for the company. The chiller equipment company was not prosecuted but formally cautioned as its contract with the brewery had made it explicit that it was for the brewery to obtain the necessary listed building consent. (Source: LPA)

Ipswich Borough Council [03-2000] 35 Tavern Street, Ipswich, Listed Grade 2. The three-storey Suffolk White brick early 19th Century commercial premises were listed in 1971. British Telecom applied for consent to install a new shop-front at the premises in a principal retail street in January 1999. However, the application was incomplete and could not be registered until 3rd March by which time the company had commenced installation of a crudely detailed and ill proportioned shop-front. The works were completed before formal consideration could be given to the appropriateness of the proposals and the applicants were informed that the unsuitable original design would not be likely to be approved in retrospect. The Council subsequently negotiated a more authentically detailed revised design with the applicant. This was eventually approved and installed in January 2000 before the case came to court, but the Council proceeded with the prosecution case because it considered that a company of national standing with retail premises in almost every high street in the country (some of them in listed buildings) should have been more aware of the statutory procedures.

The case before Ipswich magistrates was adjourned twice because BT had failed to instruct legal representatives in sufficient time to prepare their case properly, to the evident irritation of the court on both occasions. At the third appearance, Mr. Hugh Rowland for BT stated in mitigation that as far as he could tell the company despite its size had not face a prosecution before but that BT was hugely

20 embarrassedi by the prosecution and accepted culpability for it. “The frontage which BT had installed was a very broad portrayal of what was there before, but it did not fit in with the very high requirements of the planning department”. “Somewhere there was a breakdown in communication”. The magistrates commented that such a lapse was particularly regrettable in a telecommunications company. British Telecommunications plc were fined £10,000 with £600 - partly due to the adjournments. (Source: LPA & Evening Star Newspaper 09/03/2000 p.9

Islington London Borough Council [12-1996] 62 Kings Cross Road, Islington, Listed Grade 2. Crestpoly, a property company owned by Dimitri Hadjirgyrou was successfully prosecuted for what local magistrates described as “serious and flagrant” offences. The company had acquired the 19th Century townhouse in November 1995. Work commenced quickly and by December the Council discovered that substantial unauthorised work had been completed involving substantial stripping-out. This including original paneled doors; fireplaces; ceiling mouldings; all the original sash windows, the chimney breasts and part of the staircase. The Welsh slate roof had been stripped and covered in artificial slates and the sliding sash windows replaced with pivot versions. In November 1996 at Highbury Magistrates the owner pleaded guilty and was fined £10,000 with £3,000 costs. (Source: LPA)

Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough [04-1995] 18 Holland Park, Kensington, Listed Grade 2. This three-storey house designed by architect Francis Radford and built in 1862 was noted for its Victorian interior. In 1993 English Heritage discovered that the developer Mr. Anthony Haden-Taylor had removed historic ornamental plasterwork from the first, second and third floors without consent to restore the house from flats for its owner Mr. Jock Kim Cho. A chartered surveyor, Mr. Haden-Taylor fought the two and a half day trial on Legal Aid was fined £3,000 with £2,000 costs by Walton Street Magistrates Court. (Source: Chelsea News 230/03/1995).

21 18 Holland Park, Kensington

Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough [06-2013] 18 Kensington Park Gardens, Notting Hill, Listed Grade 2. This house was designed by architect and artist Thomas Allom, who designed many buildings in London and worked with Sir Charles Barry on numerous projects, most notably the Houses of Parliament. The property forms part of a listed terrace and was considered an exceptional example of an elegant mid-nineteenth century townhouse.

18 Kensington Park Gardens, Notting Hill

Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission had been granted in January 2012 for alteration works subject to stringent conditions to ensure the retention of historic features throughout the building. Westminster Magistrates Court were told that works carried out in February and March 2012 went significantly beyond what had been approved and irreversible damage had been caused seriously

22 affecting the building’s architectural and historic interest. These works effectively gutted the interior of the property and included the removal of the majority of the plasterwork from ceilings and walls; the removal of floorboards, skirting boards, dado rails and other timber features and the removal of most of the historic cornicing and some fireplaces. The end result was the complete exposure of the skeletal timber framing of the building and its internal bare brick walls on every floor level. In addition, the rear garden’s balustrade wall and staircase were removed. The defendants, architect Mr. Joshua Whitfield Berry and the building contractor Elston Developments Limited were found guilty of causing irreversible damage at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 13th June 2013. The architect was fined £3,000, plus £5,000 costs and the contractor £2,000, plus £5,000 costs. (Source: LPA)

Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough [06-2013] 104 Portland Road in Holland Park, Kensington. Owner Mr. Mayur Naturbhai Patel extended his house without planning permission in the Norland Conservation Area and was fined £15,000 at Isleworth Crown Court on 7 July 2014 and had £25,350 confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Thewas defendant also ordered to pay the Council’s costs of £3,580 and was told he faced 15 months in prison if the confiscation order was not paid within three months. After complaints were made that major work was underway, Council officers inspected the property and discovered that the roof had been altered and that a large roof extension and a rear roof had been constructed, all of which were unauthorised and considered to harm the appearance of the Norland Conservation Area. An Enforcement Notice was served in November 2012 giving four months for compliance, and despite a number of reminders no work to restore the property was carried out. In his defence, Mr. Patel claimed to have received verbal confirmation from his architect and a planning officer that the alterations would be acceptable. On 10 June 2014 Mr. Patel pleaded guilty to making major rooftop alterations without consent and failing to comply with an Enforcement Notice requiring them to be removed. Sentencing was referred to Isleworth Crown Court as it had the power to deal with the Council’s Proceeds of Crime action intended to prevent Mr. Patel profiting financially from the illegal additional floor space. In his closing remarks, His Honor Judge Phillip Matthews said he did not ascribe shady motives when imposing the financial penalty, but thought Mr. Patel - who had no previous convictions - had acted with the "utmost stupidity" and that it was no mitigation to say he relied on the advice of architects.

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk District Council [10-1998] George & Dragon PH, The Green, Wereham, Norfolk, Listed Grade 2. The colourwashed brick and rubble building with a pantil roof was listed in December 1985. Over the May 1998 Bank Holiday weekend, five uPVC casement windows were installed without listed building consent by the owners Mr. & Mrs. David Pearce. Although aware that the early 18th Century building was listed, they did not discuss the work in advance with the Council and proceeded without consent. The uPVC windows replaced 20th Century timber casement frames on the front elevation of the building. These had been retained on site but had been broken up. By the time of the court appearance the defendant Mr. Pearce had replaced the unauthorised windows with new purpose made timber casement frames to the Council’s specification at a cost of £3,400. At Kings Lynn Magistrates Court in October 1998 Mr. Pearce pleaded guilty to the offence of carrying out unauthorised works. The magistrates took into account the rectification of the windows and the guilty plea and levied a fine of £1,500 with £800 costs. (Source LPA & Lynn News)

23 Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [10-1997] 16 North Park Road, Kirkby, Listed Grade 2. The property was a Victorian villa to which a series of relatively minor but cumulative unauthorised works was undertaken, the most serious of which was the insertion of a new window, but also included UPVC guttering; installation of imitation sash windows and poor quality repairs to brickwork, which were brought to the attention of the Council by local residents in 1991.

The Authority commenced negotiations with the owner to reverse the unauthorised works or submit an application for Listed Building Consent but in the absence of a satisfactory response in either regard, proceedings were commenced at Huyton Magistrates Court in March 1996 at which the defendant pleaded guilty and received a fine of £2,000 plus costs. Following the case, the Council received further assurances from the owner but the works were not rectified and no applications were received. Consequently the Council returned to Hyton Magistrates Court in June 1997. The defendant again entered a guilty plea and the magistrates then adjourned the case for 3 months to allow time for appropriate remedial works to be undertaken and case to be prepared in mitigation. When the Court reconvened in October 1997, Listed Building Consent had been granted for some of the works and some remedial works had been carried out to the Council’s satisfaction. The owner was fined a 24 further £500 with £150 costs and due to his claimed financial difficulties was ordered to pay this at a rate of £100 per month. (Source: LPA)

Lewes District Council [07 to 12-1986] Winterborne Barn, Lewes, Listed Grade 2. The appellant company bought the 17th Century barn from Lewes District Council and obtained planning consent in 1984 to convert it into two dwellings, subject to various conditions concerning external finishes, windows and doors. Works commenced in 1984 and by mid-1985 a considerable amount of work had been done but no indication had been given to the local planning authority that there had been difficulties. When inspected by the Council it was discovered that the original timber framing had been all but completely removed. The Council sought to show that the defendant company had profited from their failure to inform the local authority what was happening and from a failure to seek any further consent, but the judge rejected those calculations, and declined ‘possibly generously’ that the company had not set out to make a profit by their failure to comply with the regulations. Despite the fact that no costs were available either for the works or the sale of the dwellings, the judge considered that the attempts to preserve the structure, then gradually replacing it would have bee grater that if it had been a new build. Nevertheless he determined that offences had been committed and the company pleaded guilty in Lewes Crown Court in July 1986 and was fined £6,000 with costs of £500. The overall fine imposed was based on £5,000 for the unauthorised demolition and £1,000 for failing to comply with a condition attached to the listed building consent. The company then appealed the sentence. The case went to the Court of Appeal in December 1986 where The Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice McCowan and Mr. Justice Simon Brown held that the sentence was based on the assumption that the company had not set out to make a profit by failing to comply with the regulations. Had it been shown that a profit had been made, a substantial fine would have been imposed. There was nothing wrong with the fine imposed by Mr. Justice Farquharson. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed. (Source: All England Law Reports (1986) 8 Cr.App.R.(S.)

Lincoln City Council [01-2017] Castle Moat House, Drury Lane, Lincoln, Listed Grade 2. Castle Moat House was built within the moat of Lincoln Castle in around 1820 as a large family home. Further additions and improvements were made to it during the mid-19th century. It was listed in July 1973 and the listing noted that the interior had a square hallway with cornice and lion masks, containing a notable branching wooden stair with turned balusters, leading to landings on three sides. The principal rooms had reeded or foliate cornices, reeded doorcase with keystones, and six-panel doors. Council officers had met the owners on site and provided advice on the consents required, but the Council acted after discovering in February 2016 that the unauthorised alterations had been done and listed fixtures had been removed from every room. Many of the historic features damaged or destroyed by the defendant date from the early to mid 19th century. The offences were: removing historic lime plaster wall surfaces in 12 rooms; removing historic ceilings in seven rooms; removal of a section of historic roof purlin and rafters; removal of decorative cornices and skirting boards in four and 14 rooms respectively; creating two new doorways through internal walls; and removal of historic timber lintels. In mitigation, the defendants claimed that it was their intention to refurbish the house for use as a family home but Newell’s Projects Limited, a property development company; its director David Newell; and Paul Priestley, a site manager employed by the company, had all pleaded guilty to six offences at an initial hearing. At the sentencing hearing at Lincoln magistrates’ court on 13th January 2017 District Judge Peter Veits fined Newell’s Projects Limited £12,000 with £12,000 costs; David was fined Newell £12,000 with £12,000 costs; and Paul Priestley was fined £3,900 fine with £3,000 costs. All three parties had to pay a victim surcharge of and £170. In all the three parties had to pay a total of £55,410: (Source: ‘The Lincolnite’)

25 Maldon District Council [10-2011] Purleigh Rectory, Church Hill, Purleigh Listed Grade 2. The Old Rectory was designed by the architect Frederick Chancellor and built by Messrs Saunders and Son of Dedham in 1883-5, replacing a former rectory on the same site. The client was Rev. Dr. Edwin Hatch (1835-1889) a noted theologian and while in residence penned the still popular hymn 'Breathe on me, breath of God'. When listed in December 2008 the dwelling was described as “very little altered since (its erection)”. The owner and his contractor of Moulton, Northampton were prosecuted at Chelmsford Magistrate's Court on 11 October 2011. The Defendants pleaded guilty to charges relating to the unauthorised removal of several internal brick partitions, inserting new doorways and removal of a ground floor flight of stairs. The alterations were considered to be significant, involving the irreversible loss of historic fabric. The defendants, in addition to being fined for the offences were ordered to contribute towards the costs of the investigation and prosecution. The owner was fined a total of £10,515 with £4,500 costs. The contractor was fined £2,015 for one offence with £500 costs. (Source: LPA)

26 Purleigh Rectory, Church Hill, Purleigh

Maldon District Council [08-2015] Sunny Sailor (formerly the Welcome) Public House, Fullbridge, Listed Grade 2 The building dates from the late 16th or early 17th century and is built of rendered brickwork but with rear first floor wall of rendered timber-framing with a gabled plain tile roof. It was listed in September 1971. Mr. John Wilsdon of Coach Lane, Maldon pleaded guilty to the formation of a large hole approximately 1 metre wide and 2 metres tall in the side of a chimney stack and its creation involved the insertion of concrete lintel. Fires continued to be lit in the chimney, causing the upper floors to fill with smoke on the 2nd of December 2014 and the Council was made aware of the unauthorised alteration without listed building consent following the attendance of the fire brigade. The defendant was prosecuted at Chelmsford Magistrates Court on the 3rd of August 2015, fined £3,750 and ordered to pay prosecution cost of £1,380 and a £125 victim surcharge payable to the court. In a separate case in 2004 Mr Wilsdon had been prosecuted for the unauthorised insertion of a staircase at the Blue Boar PH which is Grade 2* listed. (Source LPA)

27 Mendip District Council [05-2006] Lodge Farm, Farleigh, Somerset, Listed Grade 2. After a trial in May 2006 lasting almost two full days at Wells Magistrates' Court found Mr. R. Totterman, the managing director of an international design company guilty on seven counts of carrying out unauthorised works to the house, which dates back to the 15th Century as the works had exceeded those for which the defendant had obtained Listed Building Consent. The unauthorized alterations included the removal of floors, fireplaces, staircases, panelling, timbers and a chimney stack and the owner claimed to have purchased the building oblivious to the poor condition it was in before embarking on the works. In court, the owner’s expert advice had come from an architect who only visited the building only 8 weeks before the court appearance and his opinion of the condition of the building prior to the commencement of the work was gained solely through photographs. In court, Mendip's historic buildings officer described the work as "a blatant disregard of a consent", and said it was completely detrimental to the character of the building. Virtually all the historic elements of the farmhouse had been removed, including floors, fireplaces, staircases, paneling and timbers. The owner’s Barrister cited the ‘Greenside’ case (op.cit) in defense prior to sentencing, but in his summing up the Deputy District Judge was prompted to state that the owner had “blazed away regardless” and he was fined £1,000 per offence: £7,000 with £2,500 costs. Deputy District Judge Thomas said Mr Totterman may have restored the property and saved it for posterity, but he had "blazed away regardless" with his renovations when he should have gone back to Mendip and made fresh applications for the additional work. He added that the offences could have resulted in fines of £20,000 on each count, and could even have led to a prison sentence. While the local planning authority considered this lower than justifiedii by the extent of the unauthorized alterations they had calculated the defendant’s legal costs to be over £35,000. (Source: LPA)

Monmouthshire County Council [03-2008] The Gondra, Shirenewton, Chepstow, Monmouthshire, Listed Grade 2. An owner who spent £750,000 on unauthorised alterations to 250-year old mansion was fined £40,000 with nearly £9,000 at Cardiff Crown Court in March 2008. The local authority were first alerted by a member of the public, but when the builders refused to allow access, Monmouthshire Council had to obtain a court order to undertake an inspection of the house. The prosecution first came to court in July 2007 after the owner Mr. Andrew Hazell had demolished outbuildings at the house, built a large new kitchen extension and had extensively remodeled a 16th- Century cottage in the grounds, putting in modern new windows. He also built a conservatory over a courtyard, a six-vehicle garage and put a swimming pool in the grounds despite being told prior planning permission, listed building consent and buildings regulations approval were required. During the alterations, six-panel doors, moulded architraves, plaster cornices, sash windows and marble fireplaces were also removed. Judge David Wynn Morgan commented that "features that were intended to improve had been added without consideration or sympathy rather like painting a moustache on an old master or adding a drum and bass track to music written by Mozart." At the time, the case generated newspaper and television headlines because of claims made in court that the building's makeover mirrored the sort of tasteless development highlighted in the television series “Footballers' Wives”. In March 2008 Mr. Hazell was ordered to restore the property to its original state within seven months but the court was told that restoration work had not commenced, partly because a protected bat population was found in the mansion and he was given a further six months to carry out the work. The size of the fine reflected the fact that the owner was expected to spend some £450,000 on remedial changes. (Source: BBC Wales 03/2008)

28 Newport County Borough Council [03-1998] Stelvio House, Bassaleg Road, Newport, Listed Grade 2. Developers McCarthy & Stone were fined £200,000 with £13,000 costs for partly demolishing the home of important 19th Century local industrialist Charles H.Bailey. The house was spot listed on 20th March 1996 by CADW. Despite being notified by the Council that the building had been listed, the developer had sent in a demolition contractor in the early hours of the morning of 21st March 1996 and the front part of the building had ben demolished before Council officials could stop the works on site. McCarthy & Stone pleased guilty at Newport Crown Court in March 1998.The judge Tom Crowther QC inferred it was clear from the legislation that developers should not benefit from unauthorised works to Listed buildings. It had been calculated that the developers were likely to make a profit of £200,000 upon completion of redevelopment of the site to form 45 flats and this represented the sum of the fine. Subsequently the Council acknowledged that it would not be in the public interest of the building to be rebuilt in facsimile and reluctantly granted planning permission for clearance of the site and development of 45 flats. (Source: LPA but for a fuller account see the journal of the IHBC Context 59, September 1998 p.22)

Stelvio House c.1930

29 Stelvio House March 1996

Newark & Sherwood District Council [05-1997] Goldhill Farm, Edingley, Nottinghamshire, Listed Grade 2. The main building is a two and a half storey red brick farmhouse of three bays with a moulded ashlar cornice and plinth, a hipped slate roof and two lateral red brick stacks. Either side of a central doorway are single Venetian windows above which are two similar windows with single central round arched window with similar surround to doorway. The late 18th century farmhouse was listed in August 1961. The owner Mr P Meagher was found guilty at Newark Magistrates Court of making unauthorised alterations and fined £9,000 with £600 costs but the case is of particular interest because it concerned alterations to buildings that were not specifically listed but were within the curtilage and therefore revolved around the definition of what was within the curtilage of the farmhouse and therefore what was protected. The altered buildings were a range of farm buildings to the rear of the listed farmhouse. The alterations included raising the height of the roof of one section, inserting rooflights into the remaining buildings and putting in domestic windows, all of which changed their character and appearance. The Magistrates found that the farm buildings were indeed protected by the listing; that prior consent should have been obtained and that offences had therefore been committed. (Source: LPA)

Newham London Borough Council [12-2009] Angel Cottage, Windmill Lane, Newham, Listed Grade 2. The building on the boundary of the 2012 Olympic site in Stratford was demolished without listed building consent over the weekend of the 3rd and 4th of November 2007. The cottage had been erected in c.1826. English Heritage described it as being a 'charming late-Georgian cottage, one of the last precious pre-industrial buildings from the time when Stratford was a rural retreat, not yet reached by the newly invented railway.' Charges were brought against both the owner of the land and his business partner and related to the demolition and unauthorised works. Magistrates remitted the case to the Inner London Crown Court because of the serious nature of the offences with the trial set down for five days commenced on 12th October 2009. On the basis of the available evidence and that the business partner would plead guilty to the charge of unauthorised works, the Council was advised not to proceed with 3 of the 4 charges relating to the demolition of the building. The defendants demonstrated to the court that the building had been squatted in and significantly damaged prior to works they had undertook in an attempt to make it safe, and it was whilst undertaking these works that the building collapsed. The Council had no evidence to disprove the defendant’s contention that the roof had collapsed as a result of the contractors seeking to make safe. The Council’s evidence was only sufficient to prove "cause" based on the instruction given by

30 the business partner to make the building safe and therefore could only apply to what took place after the collapse. The owners did not inform the builder that the property was listed, but this did not influence the judge. The Council did however secure its costs of £15,025 in bringing the case. (Source: LPA)

Angel Cottage, Windmill Lane, Newham

New Forest District Council [05-2002] Park Farm Cottages, Court Farm, Bramshaw, Hampshire. Curtilage Listed Building. This case deal with the unauthorised demolition of a c.1800 granary within the curtilage of Park Farm Cottages, a Grade 2 listed building. The new owner Mr. Ian Clark had been advised by an experienced builder Mr. Martin Truckell that the granary was in such a bad state, it would pose a danger to people living at, working at or visiting the property. The condition of the granary was disputed, with the Council produced two written statements from people who had seen it close up and who had considered it in reasonable condition. Conversely, the defendant’s solicitor contended that while the structure was “a rather endearing feature” it was “in pretty poor condition as were a number of other outbuildings” and when it had been demolished “it was pushed over by two men”. Magistrates were told that the house had been bought for £375,000 and £90,000 worth of renovation work had been carried out on it but they considered the owner should have known the implications of the property being listed and the status of structures within the curtilage being protected. Despite a guilty plea, the defendant was fined £5,000 with £1,750 costs. (Source: LPA)

North East Derbyshire District Council [11-1997] Carter Hall Farm, Eckington, Derbyshire, Listed Grade 2. The house dated from the 1690s (with 19th and 20th century alterations and additions) and was built from coursed squared coal measures sandstone with a five bay, two storey, symmetrical front. A successful prosecution was mounted for unauthorised alterations including removing the roof; removal of plasterwork, architraves and skirtings from all internal walls; demolishing internal stud partitions and removing all but one internal door. At Derby Crown Court the defendant, businessman Mr. John Power pleaded guilty and was fined £6,000 with £19,720 costs. Judge John Machin said that the defendant had only avoided a custodial sentence by pleading guilty and agreeing to reinstate the original features. (Source: Planning)

31 North East Lincolnshire Council [05-2013] Pelham Terrace (off Brighowgate), Grimsby, Listed Grade2. Mr. Paul Brown, of was found guilty at Grimsby and Cleethorpes Magistrates' Court in May 2013 and fined £750 and ordered to pay £750 costs after admitted two offences of failing to comply with a Listed Buildings Enforcement Notice by leaving up unsightly scaffolding in place at the front of the listed building for six years commencing in 2007. After failing to secure the removal of the scaffolding by negotiation, the council served the Notice in August 2011, followed by a warning letter in March 2012 and an enforcement officer visit in May 2012, but despite this the scaffolding remained in place.

As the Council considered that Pelham Terrace built in 1854 by the Earl of Yarborough to be among the finest historic buildings in Grimsby, it took the view that the scaffolding had a detrimental impact to the appearance and character of the terrace and the wider conservation area, especially as the street is next to a major route into the town. In mitigation Mr. Brown said he was proud of the building and had been delayed by the difficulty of the delicate works required and by the cost. (Source: LPA)

North Hertfordshire District Council [07-1986] 37 King Street, Royston, Listed Grade 2. This is an interesting early case. The building was demolished without consent and without the Council being able to inspect it or being given notice of the intended demolition. A prosecution was mounted on the notification aspect as well as the unauthorised demolition. A resident of Royston had contacted the Chairman of the Planning Committee early on the morning on 25th July 1985 but by the time the Council’s conservation specialist arrived to inspect the site the building had been all but totally demolished and the remains cleared away. In court, the defense was unable to persuade the jury on the Crown Court that the building was in danger of imminent collapse. The defendants, Mr. I.G. Masters of Dom Holdings plc; Mr. J.A.T. Jossaume, and John Jossaume Ltd (the contractor) were found guilty of causing or undertaking the demolition of the building and the three defendants were found guilty of failing to notify the Council of the need for the works. Having left for a business trip to South Africa, Mr. Masters were cleared on the latter charge. Both he and Mr. Jossaume were given an absolute discharge but the companies Dom Holdings plc. and John Jossaume Ltd were fined £5,000 and £1,000 respectively. The judge directed that Dom Holdings plc. pay all the costs incurred in the case including those of the Council, which had exceeded £12,000 and concluded that the Council had shown a responsible attitude in bringing the case. (Source: Building Design 04/07/1986)

32 North Lincolnshire Council [09-2002] Braiton Messuage, Bracon, Belton, Lincolnshire, Listed Grade 2. Unauthorised works of demolition took place over the weekend of Friday 15th June to Monday 18th June 2001. Council officials who visited the site on 18th June found that the building, dating from 1750 had been completely demolished without any application for listed building consent and new foundations has been dug in preparation for the erection of an extension. Mr. Royston Drury, the defendant, claimed that demolition was necessary because the building was in such a poor state of repair. The local planning authority contended that even if the building had collapsed as claimed by the defendant (but strongly disputed by the Council), the remainder could have ben supported while repair was considered. The defendant initially pleaded not guilty but was advised by a Barrister to change his plea in the light of the facts concerning the demolition and its aftermath. The Magistrates were of the opinion that the defendant knew the building to be listed and flagrantly disregarded this. Having taken into account the defendant’s past good record and late change of plea to save a two-day trail, he was fined £3,000 with £3,000 costs. The Council’s view was that the loss of the original listed building did not imply that anything should be built as a replacement i.e. what the defendant originally intended to erect. The defendant subsequently made a retrospective application for the demolition and rebuilding of the collapsed portion of the cottage (effectively the whole of the listed part) but that this would be abortive in that a note on one of the drawings stated: “this part of the building to be rebuilt in reclaimed materials salvaged from the original collapsed building of the same plan area and height and built to match as near as possible the original structure”. This would have been more convincing had there been any record of the lost buildingiii and the proposals also intended a number of other modern constructional conventions including e.g. cavity wall construction when the original had been in Flemish bond brickwork. (Source: LPA & the Ancient Monuments Society)

Peak District National Park Authority [07-2001] Cressbrook Mill, Buxton, Derbyshire, Listed Grade 2. This was a historically significant mill complex on the banks of the River Wye, built in 1815 adjacent to an earlier mill by the industrial pioneer Richard Arkwright. The mill closed in 1965 and was listed in 1967 but deteriorated until consent for a residential conversion of the structure together with other buildings on the site was granted in 2000. The adjoining Wye Mill, Listed Grade 2* and with a distinctive tower and clock was adjacent. The developer Mr. David Holmes considered that the building was not capable of conversion but this was strongly disputed by the Authority. Nevertheless Holmes totally demolished the listed building in two weeks to speed up the project. The demolition greatly diminished the special interest and historic integrity of the site as a whole. The defendant pleaded guilty at Chesterfield Magistrates Court and was fined £12,500 with £6,000 costs. District Judge Davies said that the defendant had been properly advised and clearly knew what he could and could not demolish, but decided he knew best and continued to bring forward the date by which he could start selling residential units. The Judge added that in other circumstances he might have referred the case to the Crown Court for sentencing but decided to give Mr. Holmes credit for a guilty plea. (Source: LPA)

33 Cressbrook mill c.1970

Cressbrook mill c.2001

Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council [07-2011] 3 Trafalgar Road, Twickenham, Unlisted in a Conservation Area. Mr. John Philip Johnson demolished an unlisted semi-detached early 19th Century two-storey house that the Council had identified as being of special local interest and also covered by an Article 4 Direction. The owner had received consent to extend the house but demolished it instead with the intention of rebuilding the front façade in facsimile and redeveloping behind thus saving the Value Added Tax. Following a guilty plea at Richmond Magistrates Court in April 2011 the case was remitted to Kingston Crown Court where His Honor Judge Dodgson on 26th July 2011 sentenced Mr. Johnson to a fine of £80,000 to be paid within 12 months. In default of payment within that period Mr. Johnson would be sentenced to two-and-half years imprisonment. The defendant was also ordered to pay the Council's prosecution costs of £42,500 agreed between the parties related to use of experts, council officers and legal fees. The Judge took the heritage issue very seriously and in his sentencing referred specifically to the harm that had been caused. He found Mr. Johnson "grossly negligent" but the harm was so serious that it was

34 "highly culpable" and that it was "one of the worst cases of this kind in this context". Furthermore, Mr. Johnson had "never told anyone in the authority or his neighbours" of his true intention to demolish. (Source: LPA. The detailed implications of this case are explained in Local Government Lawyer accessible on line at: http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7525%3Aknockdo wn-price&catid=63%3Aplanning-articles&q=&Itemid=31

The defendant appealed to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal on 7th March 2012 before Lord Justice Elias, Mr. Justice Wilkie and Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jones where after lengthy argument the fine was reduced to £33,000 (Source: R. v John Philip Johnson - Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Crim 580; No. 2011/04609/A7).

Royal Borough of Kingston on Thames [04-2013] Former Regal Cinema (Gala Bingo Hall) 22-30 Richmond Road, Kingston upon Thames, Listed Grade 2. It was designed in the Art Deco style by Robert Crombie a well known cinema architect, but few of his cinemas survive. It opened in February 1932 but closed in July 1976 and remained so until it reopened in 1991 as a Coral (subsequently Gala) Bingo Hall, operating until April 2010. The quality of the Art Deco former interior is well documented at; http://www.scottishcinemas.org.uk/uk/london/kingston_regal/index.html This case was brought because of the flagrant unauthorised removal of the auditorium floor in October 2010 resulted in the entire ground floor being leveled without listed building consent (LBC) despite warnings from the Council. On 8th April 2013 at Croydon Crown Court, Mr. Lumba the sole director and sole shareholder of F L Trading

35 Ltd owner of the Listed Building, changed his plea to guilty to avoid a 3-4 day jury trial, on the basis that the Prosecution would not proceed with a charge against the Company as well. The logic behind this was that as Mr. Lumba and the Company were one and the same, a pragmatic approach would secure the certainty of a conviction and avoid the pitfalls associated with a jury trial. After hearing the facts the Judge imposed a fine of £45,000 (reduced from £50,000 to reflect the very late change to a guilty plea), saving both the time and expense of a trial. The Court further ordered Mr. Lumba to pay £28,278.18, which were all the costs associated with this case including, an expert witness, counsel, a former Royal Borough of Kingston Planner, as well as the Council’s Legal Services and Planning Enforcement costs. Whilst Mr. Lumba was described as a man of very considerable means but his assets had been restrained for 18 months in connection with a fraud trial at Southwark Crown Court. This had recently collapsed when he was acquitted and he then required time to liquidate assets to pay the fine. The Court therefore allowed him 8 months to pay but warned that failure to do so would result in an 18 month prison sentence. Although the local authority considered the fine represented a satisfactory end to this prosecution, the future of the listed building (in April 2013) was less certain. F L Trading Limited had contracted to sell the freehold to CNM Estates (Norbiton) Limited but apparently this was subject to planning permission and/or Listed Building Consent being obtained.

36 Runnymede District Council [02-2005 et seq.] This is an extensively documented high profile case (see Sources). Greenside, Chestnut Avenue, Virginia Water, Listed Grade 2. This house was designed in 1937 by Connell Ward & Lucas and overlooked Wentworth Championship Golf Course. The owner bought it in 1987 and it was listed 1988. Having unsuccessfully tried to sell it the owner proposed to demolish it and erect a new house on the site. Representations from eleven near neighbours to the local planning authority stated that Greenside was "extremely ugly"; should be "replaced with an attractive design"; was "always (…) out of context with its surroundings"; and was "unsuitable for modern needs". One pointed out that Greenside occupied "a very prominent position beside the 17th hole of the internationally famous West course of Wentworth". Golfers come here from all over the world and "without exception stare in disbelief at this white, bland pre-cast monstrosity, wondering how planning consent was even granted in the first instance. When they are informed that this incongruous pile of rubble has been a listed building since 1988, the shock is such that they invariably lose the hole through fluffed chips or stabbed putts." The case was the subject of judicial review proceedings in 2003 when the High Court issued a judgment that Runnymede District Council had acted unlawfully in seeking to grant listed building consent for the demolition of the house. Runnymede DC reconsidered the application but despite strong advice from English Heritage and the Twentieth Century Society that demolition was not justified, voted by twelve votes to three in favour of the consent to demolish on the basis that not to allow the owner to do so would infringe his human rights. Despite it being made explicit to the owner that the Human Rights Act did not override the need to obtain listed building consent, Mr. David Beadle subsequently carried out the unauthorized demolition of the house before the statutory notice period had been given by the Council to the Government Regional Office I forming them of the intention to demolish. This action also denied both the statutory bodies and other objectors the opportunity to call for a Public Inquiry into the case. As it was considered that in the light of their handling of the case, there was no prospect of Runnymede District Council initiating court proceedings and a prosecution was brought by English Heritage and the Twentieth Century Society for unauthorised demolition. The owner, Mr. Beadle, pleaded guilty at Woking Magistrates Court on 11th February 2005 but the court rejected the arguments of Mr. Beadle’s councel that the case should be dealt with in the Magistrates Court arguing that it did not have sufficient powers to deal with the seriousness of the offence, in terms of the size of fine or a potential custodial sentence and referred the case to Guildford Crown Court for sentencing. Although a fine equivalent to the value of the land could have been imposed, it was determined on basis of a single charge was levied at £15,000 with £10,000 costs. In demolishing the building however, the owner had extinguished all development rights to redevelop the plot in the Green Belt. By not being allowed to rebuild the owner had effectively lost the development value of the site in addition to the cost of the fine. This was confirmed by the Secretary of State on 15th July 2005 when he refused Listed building Consent for demolition and refused planning permission for the erection of a new house on the site as he considered that this would constitute inappropriate development in, and significant harm to, the openness of the Green Belt contrary to the local development plan and PPS2. No very special circumstances were found to outweigh this. (Sources: Context: http://www.c20society.org.uk/casework/greensides-architects-connell-ward-and-lucas/ Prior to demolition: e.g. The Guardian Online 04/11/2002; Telegraph Online 16/11/2002. Inquiry into demolition: e.g. The Independent Online 24/11/2004. Overview of case: Sharp, D., ‘The Greenside Case: ‘Another one bites the dust’, Conservation of Modern Architecture, Donhead, Shaftsbury, 2007 pp.117- 30.)

37 Greenside, Chestnut Avenue, Virginia Water

Salisbury District Council [12-2006] Barn, Winterbourne Gunner, Listed Grade 2. A farmer who demolished a 17th Century thatched listed barn was fined £12,000 with £2,500 costs at Salisbury Magistrates Court in December 2006. For many years, the defendant Mr. Richard Bruce-White had carried out little or no maintenance to the barn on his farm and had repeatedly attempted to have the structure de-listed and demolished. After several years of discussion and negotiation the barn had deteriorated to the point where the District Council was concerned that it might collapse but when the owner had failed to carry out emergency repairs to prevent further deterioration the Council resolved to serve an urgent works notice and undertake approximately £18,000 or emergency repairs. The court stated that Mr. Bruce-White knew that he had a legal obligation to maintain the barn in a structurally sound and watertight condition but had demolished it just hours before the Council was due to send specialist contractors along to undertake the urgent works necessary to prevent its collapse. The defendant had ample opportunity to resolve the issue with the Council but was not prepared to co- operate fully because he considered the barn to be a burden. Magistrates agreed that the defendant’s actions should not be seen as a cheap alternative to evading the cost of repairs to a listed building and accordingly set the fine at £18,000, the same amount that the work urgent works would have cost, however with defendant’s pleas of guilty reduced this to £12,000. (Source: LPA)

South Cambridgeshire District Council [01-2008] 38 Silver Street, Willingham, Listed Grade 2. Mr. Robert Cave was fined £10,000 and the Council’s (undisclosed) costs by Cambridge Magistrates’ Court in January 2008 for the unauthorised and extensive stripping of the interior of his 17th Century cottage and undertaking inappropriate modernisation works included removing staircases, sandblasting historic timber and brickwork and constructing new blockwork walls, all of which were harmful to the character and appearance of the listed cottage Mr. Cave admitted the charge and accepted he was aware that the cottage was listed but claimed he was not aware of the implications of it being listed, or his responsibilities in that respect. The Magistrates noted that this was a serious offence and had resulted in irreparable loss and damage to the listed cottage and that the Council’s subsequent enforcement action would also require the removal of the inappropriate works (including the new concrete block walls), and carrying out of the necessary repairs. (Source: LPA)

38 South Hams District Council [04-1992] Dartmouth Methodist Chapel, Market Square, Dartmouth, Devon, Listed Grade 2. This building was demolished by explosives. The Chapel was completed in 1816 and rebuilt in 1875 to the designs of the architect John Wills who had been the architect of many Wesleyan Chapels in the Midlands. Dartmouth was an early example of his work and until its demolition was the only known surviving piece of Wills church architecture in Devon. Following the merger of the Methodists and United reformed Church the building fell into disuse and was eventually sold to South Hams District Council in the early 1980s. They in turn sold it for £500K to a developer (C Alexander Ltd) in early 1988. The following winter an application by Mr. Peter Denga a Torquay property developer for conversion into 18 sheltered flats was refused consent. In January 1990 Mr. Denga was granted consent for a reduced number of flats. Early the following year the chapel was blown up at 2.40 a.m. one February morning in 1991. Subsequent investigation showed that a prior attempt has been made to demolish the front of the building by cutting a section out of the base of the front wall. As the District Council initially declined to act, the police considered bringing charges under the Explosive Act, but the relevant government minister used his powers under the Act to stop the prosecution. The police therefore resorted to the listed building legislation, possibly the first time the police had done so directly. It transpired in court that the owner had paid a local quarryman Mr. Steve Mann £7,000 to use explosives to damage the building sufficiently to justify demolition to facilitate redevelopment for 21 flats. The explosion caused severe cracking and despite immediate attempts by the District Council to provide a supportive scaffolding structure; an early collapse of about one-third of the front elevation occurred. The remainder of the building then had to be progressively demolished over the following few days at a cost to the Council of £41,000. At Plymouth Crown Court, Mr. Denga was sentenced to four months in prison and the quarryman Mr. Mann was given a sentence of four months with three months suspended for two years. No fines were imposed nor did the court make an award of costs. This left the Council to recoup its costs by means of civil debt recovery. (Source: LPA; Construction News 16/04/1992; The Magistrate July/August 1992; Devon Historic Buildings Group Newsletter January 1995)

39 South Oxfordshire District Council [03-2000] The Crazy Bear PH (aka The Bear & Ragged Staff PH) Stadhampton, Listed Grade 2. The building was listed in March 1975 and was a 17th century building extensively remodeled in the 19th century and built of coursed limestone rubble with square quoins and brick dressings. For failing to comply with a Listed Building Enforcement Notice, the owner Mr. Jason Hunt was fined £15,000 with £597 costs by Thame Magistrates Court. The LBEN had been issued in 1997 upheld at appeal. It required the reinstatement of a back-to-back fireplace dividing the main bar of the pub by 1999. Mr. Hunt claimed he had inherited the offence, carried out by a previous owner more than ten years previously and would not have bought the premises had the fireplace still been in place. (Source: South Oxfordshire Times 24/03/2000)

40 South Staffordshire District Council [06-1996] Old Smithy House, Dean St, Brewood, Staffordshire, Listed Grade 2. The house is probably 17th century in origin, re-modeled in the 18th century and with a painted brick front to and earlier timber frame, a clay tile roof and red brick stacks. It was listed in May 1953. This case, considered at Cannock Magistrates Court in June 1995 concerned a prosecution for failure to comply with a Condition of Listed Building Consent. In June 1995 consent was granted for ‘replacement of defective windows on rear elevation’ and ‘repointing of brickwork to rear elevation’ with conditions requiring [in summary]: mortar analysis prior to repointing; closely matching lime, cement and sand mortar with a maximum specified strength; careful cutting out of existing mortar by hand only to a specified minimum depth and the explicit ban on the use of mechanical tools; a recessed mortar joint; and a sample panel to be agreed with the local planning authority. The offence related to a failure to comply with the condition prohibiting the use of power tools such as angle grinders. The defendant pleaded guilty and was fined £2,000 with £200 costs. He also indicated to the court that he had billed the owner of the property for £11,000 and had received £5,000 but did not expect to receive the balance. (Source: LPA)

South Staffordshire District Council [12-2002] Somerford Hall, Brewood, Staffordshire, Listed Grade 2* in May 1953 a mid 18th century country house together with a brick stable range and attached outbuildings, listed Grade 2 in July 1991; and a brick Gazebo, listed Grade 2 in July 1991. Unauthorised works to were considered by Cannock Magistrates Court on 13th December 2002 where the defendant pleased guilty to six charges of unauthorized work under S.9 and two charges of criminal damage under S.59, with the magistrates considering the works to the Grade 2* Hall as particularly serious. The relevant component fines were as follows. Section 9 offences • removal of fireplaces, chimney breasts and walls £8,000 [Hall]; • installation of wall mounted boiler and insertion of balanced flue (through a blind • window) £500 [Hall]; • replacement of glazed conservatory roof with roofing felt £5,000 [Hall]; • infilling of an open cartway, laying a concrete floor and installation of a window £8,000 • [Stables]; • rendering of brick outbuildings and replacement of windows with double glazed units £10,000 [Stables]; • repointing of a dovecote with hard cement mortar £8,000 [Stables etc.]. Section 59 offences: • lowering of freestanding gables and capping with paving slabs £250 [Stables]; • rendering of gazebo £800 [Gazebo]. The overall total fines were £40,550 but in addition the Council was awarded costs of £32,145. (Source: LPA)

Southwark London Borough Council [07-1999] 33 Union Street, London SE1, Listed Grade 2. The demolition of this early 19th Century listed building was undertaken without consent in January 1998. A successful prosecution was brought against the owner Mr. Lenta, on behalf of the Bucharest Shipping Company. The defendant who appeared to be the sole trader in the company was fined £10,000 personally and £10,000 on behalf of the company and was also liable for prosecution costs of £4,000. The Council had refused listed building consent for demolition in 1991, but a repair scheme for conversion to residential, and retail on the ground floor was approved in 1995. The building was in a bad state of repair and had been on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register. The Council had urged repair and

41 proceedings under Section 54 had commenced. A Dangerous Strictures Notice had ben issued on a rear wall of an ancillary building in 1996. The building was demolished in January 1998 and the owner was interviewed under caution in February when he said he was aware that the building was listed but not aware that it was a criminal offence to demolish it. Mr. Lenta said that he had instructed contractors to demolish the back wall and the interior and that the front wall had fallen down of its own accord. His estate agent later claimed that high winds had blown down the front part of the building including the front wall. A local resident, who had been interested in buying the property as a listed building, contacted the Council with information from the estate agent which showed the sale particulars in June 1997 gave a price of £165,000 while the February 1998 asking price, after demolition was £225,000. This evidence used by the Council as part of its prosecution case was found particularly persuasive in court. After prosecution in the magistrates court Mr. Lenta appealed to the Inner London Crown Court claiming he did not have the means to pay the £20,000 fine. A hearing on 12th July 1999 dismissed his appeal and the Judge said that if it were in his power he would have increased the fine. He referred also to the Duckworth case where three factors had been taken into consideration by the Court of Appeal. There were: (a) the degree of damage to the listed building – which in this case had been completely demolished; (b) the financial gain - which in this case had been demonstrated clearly be the estate agent’s particulars; and (c) the degree of culpability, which, because Mr. Lenta pleaded guilty but stated he was neglectful, was an expensive mistake in the Judge’s opinion. (Source: LPA)

Stevenage Borough Council [04-2015] The Forge, Hertford Road, Stevenage, Listed Grade 2. The building dated back to the 17th century and had been listed in September 1976. Mr. Paul Garner, a scriptwriter employed a builder to carry out the demolition. The defendant denied being responsible for demolishing the listed outbuilding in December 2014 but was found guilty. In court, David Lamming, acting for Mr. Garner said in mitigation that it was the intention to link the main house to the outbuilding, as the two had been joined prior to a lorry accident in the 1950s and he emphasised that his client had co-operated with the council from the outset and cautioned that a hefty fine would endanger work to reinstate the outbuilding. Mr. Lamming said the "common sense" approach was to let Garner "spent what money they have left on reinstating the building rather than him paying a significant fine or substantial costs” but Stevenage Magistrates' Court issued a fine of £10,000 with £25,000 costs and a £120 victim surcharge based upon Garner’s means and having ruled out some of the Council’s prosecution costs. Mr. Jeff Finch, a builder from Vaughan Road, Stotfold who had been hired to do the work pleaded guilty and was fined £2,000 with £1,500 costs and a victim surcharge of £120

42 Simon Shannon, mitigating for Finch, invited magistrates to give him credit for an early guilty plea, saying: "Prior to the prosecution being instigated there was a degree of Mr. Finch going along with the story, but once the prosecution was instigated he did the right thing and admitted his guilt." David Knight, chair of the magistrates' bench said that Finch should have "more vigorously" questioned whether the building was listed. After the sentencing, the builder said: "It was quite fair. Quite a good decision at the end of the day on my behalf. Next time I will do my homework and not take the client's word as gospel." Garner declined to comment. (Source: Hertfordshire Mercury)

Stirling Council [02-2002] Lanrick Castle, Doune, Perthshire, Listed Grade B. The owner of the building for the preceding 20 years, Alistair Dickson, laird of the Lanrick Estate demolished the castle without consent on the weekend of 15th February 2002. The large country house, described by the Stirling Civic Trust as having been “very impressive”, had been built in 1803 for Sir John McGregor Murray after he had made his fortune in India. The house had been inherited from the defendant’s mother in 1984 but had been allowed to fall into decay and had been on the Scottish Civic Trust Buildings at-risk Register following a fire in c.1994 that had destroyed the interior and roof but leaving the structure intact. The local authority contended that the defendant had ignoring warnings that he needed listed building consent to demolish it and could have fenced the house off to make it safe while they considered how it could be saved or its best features could be preserved and recorded. At Stirling Sheriff Court the owner contended that demolition was urgently needed for safety reasons, but while Sheriff Wylie Robertson did not doubt the defendant’s concerns; he hid not accept that this was the prime motivation for the unauthorised demolition. Dickson was found guilty and fined £1,000 with three months to pay.

The Sheriff criticised Stirling Council for its bureaucratic failings, describing their procedures as “inept” for issuing a dangerous buildings notices obliging Dickson to begin fencing off or demolishing the castle within seven days while at the same time telling him that he could do neither without statutory approval that could take months to obtain. The Sheriff described this as "a bureaucratic nonsense" and highlighted a

43 conflict between the council's building control department and planning department over the respective notices, adding: "It would be naive to suggest that there is no financial benefit to the accused from no longer having responsibility for this ruinous structure. However, what was lost in this case was a ruinous structure that had been in this state for many years." The modest size of the fine was criticised by Stirling Civic Trust stating that this would “…undoubtedly encourage demolitions elsewhere. Unscrupulous owners will now think, 'yes, for a few hundred pounds, I can get this down'. We may now lose a lot of very valuable historic buildings where money haven't been forthcoming and the local authority hasn't taken strong enough steps." Fortunately in retrospect this concern has not materialized. (Sources: The Independent 21/02/2002 p.9; BBC Scotland webpages).

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [03-2014] Staley Hall, Millbrook, Listed Grade 2*. This three storey manor house with a near-symmetrical front façade dates from the late 16th Century was clad in stonework in the 17th and early 18th century and was the Seat of the De Staveley family from as early as the 14th century. It was listed in 1966. At the time of listing, much of the 16th century timber-framed structure had survived internally including the main floors and internal walls, many of the main posts of the external walls, 2 arched screens passage doorways and an interesting feature of the first floor cross-wing rooms jettied over the hall. The building was therefore considered one of Greater Manchester's most impressive and little altered houses after the early 18th century but had deteriorated significantly through except decay.Housing developer Persimmon Homes North West had received consent in 2009 for works to the Hall as part of a wider scheme of enabling development. This involved residential conversion of the Hall and associated outbuildings into apartments funded by new housing on the surrounding land. The mediaeval timber-frame had been dismantled and placed in storage prior to Persimmon taking on the site. The developer had extensively damaged the timber-frame and although the company had not gained financially from its actions the fine could not reflect what amounted to the irreplaceable loss of the 16th century timbers. Persimmon Homes pleaded guilty at Tameside Magistrate Court on 6th March 2014 and were fined £10,000 under S.9 for failing to comply with the Listed Building Consent conditions; £500 under S.59 for damage to the frame and £5,900 costs with a £120 victim surcharge. (Source: Manchester Evening News)

Thanet District Council [10-1997] 72 Plains of Waterloo, Ramsgate, Listed Grade 2. This end-of terrace three-storey gault brick house of c.1818 was listed in February 1988. The owners Mr. Moore and Mrs. Reynolds painted the previously unpainted flank brick wall of the house white completely obliterating the appearance of the original brickwork.

44 Mr. Moore was prosecuted in the magistrates court, pleaded guilty and was fined £200 with £75 costs. A Listed Building Enforcement Notice was subsequently served requiring the flank wall to be repainted to a better standard of finish as the local authority considered it would be very difficult and damaging to have removed the paint. (Source: LPA)

Thurrock Borough Council [06-1995] Old Hall Farmhouse, Pound Lane, Orsett, Essex, Grade 2. This case received a considerable amount of publicity over a three-year period in broadsheet and tabloid newspapers and on television. The reasons for the high profile were due solely to the notoriety of the owner the late Teresa Gorman (d.2015) who was a Member of Parliament for Billericay at the time. Old Hall was originally listed in 1960 and comprised a 15th Century timber-framed range, an in-line late 17th Century timber-framed lobby entrance cased in brick in c.1800 and 19th Century ranges to the rear. By 1991 the house was on Thurrock Buildings-at-Risk register and annually inspected. Mr. & Mrs. Gorman became the owners in January 1993. Extensive unauthorised work commenced at some point in 1994 and the Gormans were advised to stop work, but continued and no listed building applications were made. Following Council’s site inspections, 34 items of work were identified that could not be classified as repairs and would have required listed building consent. No items of repair were recorded as necessary during the site visits. The timber-frame required no repairs and the roof was sound. There was no evidence of settlement or treatment for infestation. Sash windows taken out by the owners and claimed to be rotten beyond repair had either been removed from site (or burned) before any inspection of their alleged condition could be made. Initially thirty-three summons were served on Mr. & Mrs. Gorman alleging 33 separate breaches of listed building control. This was later reduced to 29. At hearing set for 19th June 1995 defending councel submitted there should be one summons. Although this was accepted by the Stipendiary magistrate, who ordered the Council to amend the prosecution to one summons; a Judicial Review in the High Court before Mr. Justice Popplewell concluded that in reality the outcome would be the same whether there were 33 summonses or one and Thurrock decided to take no further action on this aspect. The Council also served 14 Listed Building Enforcement Notices in January 1995, although one of these was subsequently withdrawn. Appeals were lodged against all of these and the Gormans pursued a High Court Application to quash the Notices on the grounds that they were a nullity. This action failed and Thurrock Council was awarded costs of £5,412. [For a detailed analysis of the extent of and compliance with the enforcement notices see the Context article referenced below.] 45 On each of the 29 breaches, the Gormans pleaded guilty. In mitigation they argued that they had no experience of listed building works or listed building consent, however the Council produced evidence to show that previous listed building applications in their names had been submitted to Westminster City Council for works to a Grade 2 Listed house in Lord North Street, London. The magistrate was convinced by the Council’s case and found Mr. & Mrs. Gorman guilty but in setting the fines appeared to have accepted, in part at least, the argument that the defendants had rescued at great expense, a building at risk. He fined them £3,000 each and required them each to pay £4,000 towards the Council’s costs, a total of £14,000. The Gormans also had to meet substantial legal costs from their own pockets. (Source: Context 53, March 1997 pp.8-15 journal of the Association of Conservation Officers [now the Institute of Historic Building Conservation].

Tumbridge Wells Borough Council [02-2001 - 05-2002] Stream Farm, Iden Green, Kent, Listed Grade 2. In November 1998 Council Officers noticed that unauthorised works were being carried out at the farm, listed in July 1993 and twenty-two separate potential itemized offences were identified. A prosecution was then authorized by the Council although listed building consent was granted subsequently in retrospect. The defendant submitted at a hearing before magistrates on 5th February 2001 that the Council’s prosecution was an abuse of process because of a letter from the Council, which the defendant claimed amounted to a promise not to prosecute for past offences if work ceased immediately. The Council’s view was that the letter was intended to stop work, which would have further exposed the defendant to the risk of prosecution, and also to possible injunction proceedings. Although the magistrates considered the wording of the letter constituted a conditional promise, the Council applied for a Judicial Review of the magistrates decision. The Divisional Court conclude on 30th October 2001 that the magistrates had erred in concluding that there had been an abuse of process and also that proceedings should be stayed. The prosecution case returned to court on 8th July 2002. Of the total of 22 charges, the defendant pleaded guilty to five and agreed to pay a proportion of the Council’s costs on the understanding that the Council dropped the remaining charges. This was agreed and the judge gave a conditional discharge on all charges. The defendant had to meet the Council’s costs of £40,000 up to and including the Judicial Review and the Council’s July 2002 court costs of £5,500. In addition the defendant’s own legal costs before the Judicial Review were estimated to be about £50,000 before the expenditure on the reinstatement work required by a Listed Building Enforcement Notice. (Source: LPA & for the Judicial Review: Journal of Planning & Environment Law May 2002 pp.756-758)

Wandsworth London Borough Council [11-2007] The Caretakers Cottage at the former Brandlehow School, Putney, Listed Grade 2. The cottage was originally built in 1952 and was the work of controversial Modernist architect Erno Goldfinger. It was listed in 1993. The single-storey residence was sold by the council in 2001 to developer Rajiv Laxman who applied for consent to demolish in 2002 but this was refused and also dismissed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. The developer illegally demolished part of the building in January 2007, the council having been tipped-off by local residents that demolition had commenced. The developer received verbal and written warnings to cease all work as unauthorised demolition would be a criminal offence, but when officers returned to the site two days later, more demolition had been carried out. The developer was initially prosecuted for unlawful demolition and fined £8,000 with £3,000 costs in action strongly supported by both English Heritage and the Twentieth Century Society. Under a separate Enforcement Notice, the council instructed him to rebuild the property to match its former appearance based on Goldfinger’s drawings or face further court action. In September 2008 the council was granted an interim injunction requiring the remains of the listed building to be properly weatherproofed to protect it from the elements. Subsequently, a High Court injunction was obtained requiring Mr. Laxman to immediately begin rebuilding the Grade II Listed building. The defendant was also told by the judge that he must commence rebuilding work no later than March 1, 2009 (to comply with a planning permission for the construction of a new property alongside the

46 cottage) and this was all to be completed by November 30, 2009.

If Mr. Laxman did not meet the two stipulated deadlines, he risked being found guilty of contempt and a jail sentence; further fines and the seizure of his company's assets. The developer had by this already been to court twice and had paid £24,000 in fines and legal costs. When he failed to comply with the notice requiring rebuilding, he was taken to court and ordered to pay a further £13,000, being eventually forced to pay a total of £37,000 in fines. Consent to rebuild the cottage was eventually granted in November 2011. (Source: LPA)

Wandsworth London Borough Council [03-2009] Montague Arms PH, Medfield Street, Roehampton, London, Listed Grade 2. The building closed as a pub in 2006. In 2008 a firm of property developers, Carrington Sears, based in Bethnal Green carried out unauthorised alterations without consent causing significant damage to the interior of the building which dated in part from the 17th Century and one of the borough’s oldest buildings. The developer gutted the interior and removed many of its unique fixtures and fittings – including original doors, door casings, walls, a staircase, paneling and timber beam cladding. Although the developer was advised both verbally and in writing that all works should cease immediately and a formal Stop Notice was issued on October 24 2008, a site inspection by planning officers three days later revealed that further works had been carried out and the Council obtained an interim court injunction against the company the next day to stop further work. In court, company director Mr. Abdul Khan pleaded guilty in the magistrates court and was fined £2,000 with £2,000 costs. The planning department has also issued a Listed Building Enforcement Notice requiring the developer to put back all the fixtures and fittings that were removed and repair and reinstate the external fascia boards on the front of the pub, as well as the former bar on the ground floor, along with all its associated joinery and cupboards within a further 3 months. Applications for change of use from public house to retail or office uses on the ground floor with residential above were approved in June 2010 and implemented. (Source: LPA & PutneySW15.com 2008)

47 Pub at point of closure 2006 Pub in October 2008

Waveney District Council [10-2011] Barn Owl Barn northeast of New House Farm, London Road, Weston, Suffolk. Listed Grade 2. The barn, which had been listed in June 1986 was timber-framed, mainly weather-boarded with red brick gable ends and a pantiled roof. The barn of five bays with a central cart entrance had a substantially intact frame with full-height studding and arched bracing. Various planning and listed building consents and amendments had been obtained over the previous 20 years to allow conversion to a dwelling. The defendant bought the house in 2000 but removed one tie- beam and partially removed another after the authorized conversion of the property had been completed and a building control Completion Certificate had been obtained. The further alterations had irreparably altered the structural frame described in the list description as ‘substantially intact’. Other unauthorized changes were the subject o separate planning enforcement action. The owner stated that having engaged a builder, who was her partner at the time, to carry out the works, she had relied on his assurances that all the consents were in place, but it was determined that as the owner of the property it was her responsibility not only to ensure that this was the case - not merely to rely on someone else’s assurance - but to also ensure the works were undertaken in accordance with those consents. The court found that it was not sufficient merely to have handed the whole project off to a third-party, even where this was her partner. None of the statutory defences applied, as the works were not urgently necessary for safety or to preserve the building. The District Judge considered there was significant mitigation but understood the significance of the works to the building and the owner was fined £750 [plus a victim support charge of £15] together with the Council’s full prosecution costs of £715. (Source: Statement on behalf of the Prosecutor)

Waverley District Council [05 & 06-1998] 24 Castle Street, Farnham, Listed Grade 2. The Council successfully prosecuted the owner, his surveyor and two builders for unauthorised alterations to the cellar of a late Georgian three-storey house. The works, carried out in July 1997 did not form part of the works approved in January 1997 for elevational and other internal alterations to the cellar to convert it to a playroom with and increase in headroom. Dampness was to be controlled by means of a Newton 500 lining system while the increased headroom was to be achieved by reducing the depth of the modern ground-floor joists and inserting a spine-beam in mid-span to compensate for the reduction in strength.

48 Officers had given pre-application advice to the owner’s surveyor against tanking the cellar and against lowering the cellar floor. Not only was there concern about excavating the floor because foundation depth are minimal on buildings of this period (confirmed by trial holes dug in the cellar) but officers advised that the old brick floor and the spatial qualities and levels should be left intact as part of the original character of the listed building. Later was discovered at the end of July 1997 that the authorized works had not been carried out and that the old brick floor had been taken up and disposed of, the floor had been excavated to foundation levels, a reinforced concrete floor-slab had been installed together with a concrete plinth around the cellar walls. At Guildford Magistrates Court in May and June 1998. The owner and builder pleaded guilty. The surveyor pleaded not guilty until after hearing the prosecution case on the day of the trial, when he changed his plea to guilty. The court would have found it advantageous if all the defendants could have been dealt with by the same Bench but this was not possible. The owner faced a Newton Hearing (i.e. a guilty plea but with the defense disputing the prosecution’s version of events). At the end of the Newton Hearing, the Bench accepted the defendant’s version, i.e. that the Council had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the owner did intend the unauthorised work to be executed or that he knew what was happening was wrong. In the case of the surveyor, his solicitor accepted after hearing the prosecution’s case that a causal link to his client had been established, i.e. that when the builders dug up the cellar floor, they were purporting to implement a Specification which the surveyor surveyor had prepared in March1997. This Specification (which the Council did not see until August1997 – after the event) included the authorized work but also specified the removal of the cellar floor, setting aside the bricks for re-use, excavating to the underside of the existing wall, and relaying the bricks onto a 50mmsand/cement bed. The surveyor’s solicitor continued to maintain that the works as executed bore no resemblance to the specification but as the surveyor’s change of plea relieved him from having to give evidence under oath, it was not possible for the prosecution to test his case. The owner and surveyor were given conditional discharges for two years and one year respectively and the two builders were fined a total of £500. All the defendants were ordered to pay the Council’s prosecution costs of over £5,000. (Source: LPA)

Westminster City Council [10-1989] 67 Dean Street, Soho, London, Grade 2*. Damaging unauthorised internal alterations were carried out to a Georgian building of c.1731 without consent by a developer Francis Fowler and Season Builders Ltd.Westminster City Council described the interiors as “exceptionally complete and very rare” but had

49 been removed when the developer was converting the first floor into a flat. The Council said that Fowler had shown “a callous attitude to the unique built heritage of Westminster”. English Heritage only became aware of the removal of the interiors when the brother of one of its officials spotted pile of moulded and fielded paneling lying in a skip in the road. Two skip-loads had already been dumped, but a third was saved. Fowler, who pleased guilty to all seven charges brought by the Council, claimed at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court that he was unaware the interiors were covered by the Grade 2* listing. He was fined the then maximum on each count, in total £14,000 and costs of £10,000. Repairs and reinstatements were estimated to cost him a further £80,000, based on the design of that of joinery of a similar date in the building next door. Georgian fireplaces, which had been stolen would also be replaced. (Source: Building Design 20/10/1989).

Westminster City Council [06-2015] 3 Savile Row, London, Grade 2* This terraced town house built in c. 1733 and listed in February 1958 is part of the Burlington Estate and is four storeys with a basement and built in brown brick. The original 50 listing description noted that the building interior had retained its fine quality fielded paneling, plasterwork to some ceilings, especially front first floor room, carved chimneypieces and the original octagonal enriched plaster drum to the stair skylight but has lost its original staircase and undergone a late C20 remodeling on the ground floor. A planning condition for the new childrens’ fashion store for Abercrombie and Fitch required that no internal decoration be undertaken before the Council approved a paint specification and colour scheme. A visiting officer of the council in March 2014 discovered “inappropriate redecoration” had taken already place in the finest room in the building. While acknowledging the defendants’ guilty pleas, Westminster Magistrates Court found that both AFH Stores UK and co-defendant Castletech Construction had acted in the full knowledge that the work was not permitted and that they were equally culpable. They were both fined £3,000, plus costs, on 3 June 2015 for a breach of a conditional listed building consent with total fines and costs awarded against the defendants amounting to nearly £16,000. (Source LPA)

Westminster City Council [08-2016] 99 Star Street, Westminster, Listed Grade 2. The property situated in the Bayswater Conservation Area, London dated from c.1830 part of a terrace listed in April 1975. Husband and wife Mohammed Owadally and Seema Khan, both chartered accountants and their chartered structural engineer David Williams were successfully prosecuted by Westminster City Council on 7th July 2016 at Hammersmith Magistrates Court, after the listed building was stripped of its the original butterfly roof, walls, floors chimney breasts and an external chimney stack, all without consent. The building had been acquired for £1.5m in August 2013 and the majority of the works were undertaken 51 in November 2013. The council issued a number of verbally and written warnings in November and December 2013 and the defendants were told to stop work but carried on regardless adding structural steelwork and risking "irreversible damage" to the historic brickwork. District Judge Coleman told the court that the “historic fabric” of the house had been destroyed in the “drastic” operation, affecting the building’s physical stability. The court rejected claims by the owners that they did not know the building was listed after it emerged that the engineer had informed them that it was. Owadally and Khan were found guilty on all four counts, and were fined £27,000 plus £15,000 costs each. Williams was found guilty of one count relating to the construction of a new roof, and was fined £4,000, plus £5,000 costs. Additionally all three defendants were required to pay a victim surcharge of £120. (Source: LPA)

West Lindsey District Council [12-1992] Collow Abbey Farmhouse, East Torrington, Listed Grade 2. Consent was granted in March 1991 to alter and extend the farmhouse, subject to conditions. The demolition of the south and west walls of the original house was sought because these had proved structurally unsound, however at a site visit in late October 1991 Council officers discovered that during that month unauthorised works had been undertaken to the farmhouse involving the demolition of the north or rear wall; part of the east gable wall; the chimney stack and adjacent staircase. The farmhouse had been almost totally demolished and only a section of the original east gable wall remained. The owner claimed to have approval to demolish all the outer walls (although approval for total demolition had not been sought) and the chimney stack had fallen down. At some point between 5th November 1991 and 11th February 1992 further partial demolition was carried out to the south and west walls which although authorized by a listed building consent issued in November 1991 had failed to comply with conditions attached to the approval requiring the materials of the demolished parts of the building (south and west walls) to be retained on site to be used as part of the reconstructed building; and the rebuilt walls to be constructed in a similar manner to those then existing using reclaimed bricks and finished externally to the Council’s satisfaction. In actuality, the rebuilt walls were not constructed in a similar manner to the demolished walls; were not constructed using reclaimed materials; and were not finished externally as the Council required. Mr. & Mrs. J Robinson pleaded guilty at Market Rasen Magistrates Court to two charges relating to the October 1991 demolition and failure to rebuild in a similar manner; but not guilty to the charge relating to the retention and reuse of the materials from the later demolition (and the Council offered no evidence

52 on this third charge).The two defendants were each fined £1,250 in respect of each charge – a total of £5,000 and the Council’s plea for costs of £5,438 was reduced to £4,000. (Source: LPA)

Windsor & Maidenhead Royal Borough Council [04-2007] 4-5 Park Street, Windsor, Listed Grade 2*. On 16 April 2007 in Slough County Court the Council successfully prosecuted Rigsby Asset Management Ltd (RAML), a Windsor-based property company for unauthorised works. The company pleaded guilty to a total of 21 offences and was fined a total of £91,000, plus the Council’s costs of £32,500. Nos. 4 and 5 Park Street is a pair of substantial Georgian town houses listed in January 1950. They were vacated in 2004 after being in the ownership of local solicitors. During a site visit by Council officers in January 2005 to examine proposals for planning permission and listed building consent made on behalf of Mr. Mark Entwistle, Director of RAML; it became apparent that significant alterations were in progress to both the interior and exterior of the buildings. These including substantial gutting of the interiors; removal of historic lime plaster wall and ceiling finishes including cornice mouldings; removal of floorboards and removal of chimneypieces. Repointed had been undertaken with an inappropriate cement mortar, the roof had been retiled and the stone parapet copings replaced with concrete. The developers and builders, were warned by the Council of the implications of their actions in a series of site visits and was advised that the developer had agreed to halt work but it became clear to officers monitoring the site over the next few months that the work was continuing. In April 2005 the Council therefore in successfully applied to the High Court for an Injunction against Mr. Entwistle and Mr. Tim Smart (the builder) to prevent them carrying out any further work and were awarded £7,000 costs in obtaining the injunction. The Council subsequently laid charges against Mr. Entwistle, Mr. Smart and RAML initially heard in Maidenhead Magistrates Court on 1 November 2006 when all parties pleaded not guilty. Mr. Smart elected to be tried in the Crown Court, and Mr. Entwistle and RAML in the magistrates court. The trial took place in April 2007. Prior to commencement, lawyers for Mr. Entwistle and RAML confirmed that RAML were prepared to plead guilty to a total of 21 of the original list of 31 counts and meet the Council’s costs in bringing the matter to prosecution. After very careful consideration the Council felt that the guilty pleas represented a reasonable reflection of the extensive unauthorised work undertaken; enable the court to deal with seriousness of the offences; and would obviate the need for a full trial on the remaining counts against RAML or against Mr. Entwistle as this would not be in the public interest. The fines imposed by District Judge Vickers, were disaggregated against the various charges, and ranged between £1,000 and £10,000 but £91,000 overall. The Judge imposed higher fines for works undertaken after the Council had issued the first warnings that work should cease. In handing down sentence, the Judge commented, in respect of arguments of mitigation by the defendants, that the company had claimed to have proven track record of working on historic buildings and should have been well aware of the need to consult with Council and obtain the necessary approvals in advance. (Source: LPA)

Wokingham Borough Council [08-2015] Boathouse, Val Wyatt Marina Boatyard, Willow Lane, Wargrave, Surrey. Unlisted building in a conservation area. Mr. Ben Caddick and Mrs. Lisa Caddick were convicted of demolishing a historic timber boathouse next to the River Thames dating back to the early 1900s despite being advised by Council planning enforcers that the couple they would need consent because the building because was is in a conservation area. The defendants ignored that advice and officers from the Council stated that the defendants had done this to make way for a large two-storey floating structure to be used as offices for the boatyard. Mr. and Mrs. Caddick and their company Val Wyatt Marine Ltd were prosecuted and found guilty at Reading Magistrates Court on 11th August 2015 and fined £5,000 each and ordered to pay £3,455 in costs despite Mrs. Caddick stating to the press that the building had not been demolished and was still standing on the property in a different location. She said: "It was moved on the basis of professional advice received by a planning consultant. Wokingham Borough Council were aware of our intention to do this for a month and made four site visits to us during which time they never prevented us from moving it.” She

53 added her and her husband had been told by an officer at the Council that, due to the state of the boathouse, there was a 90 per cent chance they would receive planning permission to demolish it. We were even asked to submit retrospective planning permission which we were in the process of doing before we were issued with the court summons." (Source LPA)

Wrexham Borough Council Miners Rescue Centre. Listed Grade 2. Built in 1913 to train miners how to rescue their colleagues in underground emergencies. A local businessman pleaded guilty and was fined £2000 and ordered to pay £1,700 costs for instructing two laborers to commence demolition on 18th August 2010 only hours after Cadw had listed the building. The Council brought the work to a halt but the men returned two days later to try to make the building structurally safe resulting in part of the roof collapsing. The two contractors were fined £300 with £200 costs and £150 with £100 costs respectively. In mitigation the defendant claimed he was acting within his rights because he had not been told of Cadw’s decision to list and the local authority had already given two consents for demolition. “He did not think in a million years that it would be granted listed status”. The court was told the defendant had started work on a project to restore the Centre and had engaged a leading architect. (Source: BBC News North East Wales) [Extensive further documentation & illustrations at: http://www.northwalesminers.com/trust/projects/project_rescuestation.htm]

Wrexham Borough Council [06-12] Lower Honkley Farmhouse, Rossett, Listed Grade 2. This mediaeval cruck-framed house was the subject of unauthorised alteration without listed building consent. The owner Mr. Frederick Nigel Darlington of Rossett denied four charges brought by the Council but changed his pleas and admitted three charges part way though the case. District Judge Andrew Shaw, sitting at Mold Magistrates Court on 28th June 2012 gave the owner a 12 month conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £8,000 costs. Architectural technician Geraint Lewis of Dolgellau denied four charges but was convicted on two counts and fined £1,000 with £3,000 costs. The defendants claimed the council had “led them up the garden path” by granting planning consent containing a controversial clause that required a conservation method statement. The judge said that while the planning application had not been a text book one, it would have been much better if simultaneous consideration had been given to an application for listed building consent. (Source Daily Post: North West News)

Wychavon District Council [08-2015] Glasshouses, Walled Garden, Westwood House, Westwood Park, Droitwich Spa, Listed Grade 2. On 3 September 2014 officers of the Council were alerted by a member of the public that one of two glasshouses at the property was being demolished. On site it was found that one of the glasshouses had 54 been almost completely demolished and that the glazed timber frames and broken glass from the glasshouse had been thrown into a skip.The walled garden property, was jointly owned by Mr. Duccio Latino Senese Baldi and others , is part of the Westwood House estate and includes Westwood House – a Grade I listed building, registered historic park and one of the most important historic listed buildings in the area. The glasshouses in the walled garden were built in the late 19th century, were restored in 2005, and were fine examples of their type. Their restoration had been part of a listed building planning permission that enabled the owner at the time to restore the glasshouses and to build an architect designed house against the kitchen wall. The planning permission was exceptional and was subject to a legal agreement requiring the owner at the time to carry out repair and restoration works to the glasshouses, the kitchen garden and the 18th century garden wall. Mr. Baldi of Cummins Farm Cottages, Worcester, pleaded guilty to unauthorised demolition s when he appeared at Worcester Magistrates Court on 6 August 2015 and was ordered to pay fines and costs totaling £5,520. The fines and costs was required to be paid within 28 days and the glasshouse to be rebuilt. (Source: Droitwich Standard)

Endnotes i Subsequent to the prosecution the officers of the local planning authority were interviewed by consultants acting on behalf of British Telecom to see what lessons the company could learn as its Code of Corporate Governance required any breach of legislation to be reported to its main company board. ii The local planning authority in this case made the interesting suggestion that perhaps a sliding scale of £1,000 for the first offence getting towards £20,000 for the last one might have been more appropriate. iii There were no drawings or written account (other than the list description) and no photographs of the building.

Photo Credits All the illustrations have been credited where possible, but IHBC would be happy to acknowledge the source of any unspecified, un-credited or incorrectly credited illustrations in further updates.

Church Farm, Nash -Aylesbury Vale DC; Woodvale Rd, Barnet - Barnet LBC; Doughty Street, Camden – unspecified; Kings Arms, Bicester – Cherwell DC; Rangemore Hall – East Staffordshire DC; Hainault Hall, Epping – author; 135 Stoke Newington St, Hackney – author; Cloncurry St, Fulham – Hammersmith & Fulham LBC; Copt Hewick Hall, Copt Hewick, North Yorkshire - Harrogate Borough Council; Old Rectory, Market Bosworth – Hinkley & Bosworth DC; The Gables, Saldwick – Huntingdonshire DC; 31 High St, Ramsey - Huntingdonshire DC; Old Bell Inn, Ipswich – author; 35 Tavern St, Ipswich – author; 62 Kings Cross Rd, Islington – Islington LBC; 18 Holland Park, Kensington – unspecified; George & Dragon PH, Wereham – Kings Lynn & West Norfolk DC; 16 North Park Rd, Kirby – Knowsley MBC; Purleigh Rectory, Purleigh – Maldon DC; The Gondra, Chepstow – BBC Wales; Stelvio House, Newport – unspecified; Angel Cottage, Newham – Newham LBC; Cressbrook Mill, Buxton – Peak District National Park Authority; 3 Trafalgar Rd, Twickenham – Richmond on Thames LBC; Greenside, Wentworth – BookART: Sydney Newbury/Dennis Sharp; 38 Silver St, Willingham – South Cambridgeshire DC; Methodist Chapel, Dartmouth – The Magistrate magazine; 33 Union St, London SE1 – Southwark LBC; Lanrick Castle, Doune – Stirling Civic Trust/BBC Scotland; Staley Hall, Tameside – Manchester Evening News; 72 Plains of Waterloo, Ramsgate – unspecified; Caretaker’s Cottage, Brandlehow School, Putney – Wandsworth BC; Montague Arms, Roehampton – Wandsworth BC; 24 Castle St, Fareham – Waverley DC; 67 Dean St, Soho – Westminster CC.