LEGAL Cambridgeshire Demolition Brings £70,000 Fine The case concerned the demolition of two listed stone-built lodges in Chatteris, North Cambridgeshire, in the full knowledge of their listed status. The lodges were built about 1840, possibly with stones from monastic remains. Their form, two rooms only over a cellar, and walling material were sufficiently interesting to justify listing in 1982. Two octagonal privies were separately listed. An application for total demolition was refused in 1985, and subsequently schemes for repair and improvement were provided by the County Council Conservation Group. In 1986 a further demolition application was received, and refused. The owner appealed, and a public inquiry was held in June 1987. The appeal was dismissed, but before the owner received the Secretary of State's letter (the LETTERS The following letter has been received from the Conservation Officer for Harrogate Borough Council, Peter Fisher. Would any members who can offer guidance please reply direct to Mr Fisher at the address he gives. Dear Editor, GRANTSUNDERTHELOCAL AUTHORITIES (HISTORIC BUILDINGS) ACT 1982 Harrogate Borough Council has, for the first time, tentatively allocated £10,000 in its draft Capital Programme for 1989/90 for grants under the 1962 Act. Before seeking the approval of my Committee to the parameters within which a grant scheme would operate, I should be grateful for the opportunity to canvass, through your columns, the views and experience of other Authorities who give grants under the 1962 Act. In particular it would be helpful to know: (a) Do other Authorities confine grants to listed buildings or adopt some other definition of an historic building? (b) Are grants or loans made, or both? 24 District Council had received its copy) the buildings were demolished. Fenland District Council prosecuted under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, with the active assistance of Cambridgeshire County Council who provided expert conservation advice and evidence. The owner and his son were both prosecuted; they are local builders operating through a company in their own name. Trial in the Crown Court, that is prosecution on indictment, was sought and obtained at a commital hearing in the Magistrates Court. It was considered to be a matter of such a serious nature that the unlimited fines which may be imposed at a Crown Court were more appropriate than the restricted fines option available at a Magistrates Court. At the trial on 3rd October 1988 at Cambridge Crown Court, pleas of Guilty were entered, in exchange for charges relating to the listed privies being dropped. The two defendants were fined a total of £70,000. The case was not a difficult one, (c) Is eligible work limited to structural or external repairs (as with Town Scheme grants) or is any internal work eligible? (d) Is grant given as a straightforward percentage of the cost of eligible work (and, if so, what) or on the basis of the difference between the cost of employing authentic materials or features and modern substitutes? Has experience shown that a minimum percentage is necessary to encourage take up and avoid underspending? (e) Are any new purchase or sale conditions imposed? (f) Any other relevant experience in operating the scheme. Please reply to: Department of Technical Services Knapping Mount West Grove Road HARROGATE HG12AE I should like to take this opportunity to thank any respondents in advance. Yours sincerely Peter Fisher Conservation Officer, Harrogate Borough Council because it involved total demolition and because most issues, including the structural stability of the buildings, had been explored in full during the public inquiry. In addition, there were witnesses to the demolition who were prepared to testify. The case does not set significant precedents, but it is of interest because of the size of the penalties. In the evidence presented by the District Council, the likely development gain arising from the demolition was assessed by expert valuation witnesses and the Judge said that his judgement was intended to remove that gain. However, he went no further than that, and did not impose any personal penalty beyond the development gain. Rob Walker is Conservation Officer with Cambridgeshire C. C. Copies of the expert conservation evidence are available from the Cambridgeshire County Council conservation officers (tel: 0223 317616), price £5.00 inclusive. The following letter has been received from Peter M. Hood. ROSE of JERICHO Dear Editor, P.O. Box53 Kettering Northamptonshire NN14 3BN I am keen to make myself and my firm known to the members of A.C.O. I have been making traditional mortars, plasters, renders, paints, coatings etc. for two years now and this firm is leading the way in the ressurection of most ancient building and decorateing materials. I am personally commissioned by HBMCE to liase with John Ashurst in advising on the preparation of Roman and Medieval mortars, an honour that I am not sure I deserve but it does keep me on my toes! I am also guiding Cadw and Scottish HB&M. Is it possible to let members know that I am very pleased to visit and give both technical and practical advice with a view to supplying material etc.? It may be, now that my firm is given as a supplier for much of the grant aided work, that many members already have a note of Rose of Jericho, but I would like to be sure. Your sincerely, ~ Jd-rrv~ Peter Hood
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=