24 LAW & PRACTICE NOVEL JUSTICE? UNAUTHORISED WORKS TO CURTILAGE BUILDINGS Anstey Hall Farm, Trumpington, is the best group of farm buildings within the Cambridge City boundary. The farmhouse and two of its outbuildings (a barn and a dovecote, both 18th . century) are individually listed (Grade II); the latter form part of the west range of buildings which mark the edge of the green belt and the entrance into the Trumpington Conservation Area. The two northernmost buildings in this range were 19th century gault brick and slate: a two-storey building and a single-storey building with its gable end on to the road. The latter was pivotal in views both into and out of the Conservation Area, and was linked to the farmhouse by a wall and gateway which completed the enclosure of the farmstead. To the south east are three interlinked 20th century former stock yards; the southern yard buildings were mostly roofed in 'Belgian' tiles, but one outbuilding at the south end (which is seen in conjunction with the west range and the church) had the characteristic local variegated buff clay pantiles. The farmstead as a whole is a classic illustration of how curtilage buildings can be vital to the character, setting and special interest of those buildings which are individually listed. The end building adjoining the road was demolished soon after the present owner bought the farmstead in 1988. Proceedings were authorised but stayed because of continuing negotiations relating to potential new uses for the site. In I 990 a schedule of 'like for like' repairs to other buildings was agreed; the only items which went beyond this strict definition were the replacement of ~adly decayed Belgian tiles on the eastern courtyard buildings with Goxhill pantiles (identical clay colour bur different profile), and of an asbestos roof (with natural slate). When the works were inspected not only had the Belgian riles and the asbestos been replaced with Goxhills, but the buff clay pantiles had also been removed and replaced: the result was a uniform expanse of bright new pantiles where there had formerly been a series of distinct roofs. Only repairs ro the slate roof of the two-srorey building had been authorised bur new outward-opening casement windows and an internal stair had been inserted, and a stainless steel flue had bern added to the west side. The unauthorised works had been carried out without reference to the architects responsible for the approved schedule of repairs and with whom we were Anstey Hall Farm before unauthorised work and close up of new window and flue. negotiating a conversion scheme. Planning and listed building applications were subsequently submitted seeking ro retain the unauthorised alterations (the flue was later stove enamelled black) but in August 1991 the applications were refused, and prosecutions and enforcement notices were authorised. The case finally reached the Magistrates Court in July 1992. In the meantime further applications (for holiday-let units in the eastern courtyard buildings) had been submitted and approved subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement. The owner and his father-in-law were charged with a total of 12 offences under S9(1). Alternative charges under S74(3) were brought in case the curtilage status of the buildings was disputed. The Magistrates found as matters of fact char the buildings had listed status, and that the removal of windows and lattice infill from the openings in the two-storey building, and the removal of the buff clay pantiles were not demolition. Guilty verdicts were given in relation to the unauthorised demolition of the single-storey building and the unauthorised alterations to the other buildings. The owner was fined £7,500 in relation to the demolition, £3,000 in relation to the windows, £1,000 in relation to the flue, and £5,000 in relation to the tiles; his father-inlaw was fined £3,000 in relation to the demolition and £2,000 in relation to the windows. The total fines of £21,500 for works to curtilage buildings make a striking comparison with a case in the same court a few years ago in which the owner and his company were fined just £1,000 each for the total demolition of a Grade II thatched cottage. It may not be coincidence that the July/August 1992 issue of The Magistrate has an article by Valerie Tupling of Shepway DC dealing with the question of penalties for unauthorised works. Appeals were entered against sentence but not against conviction, and the appeals were heard in the Cambridge Crown Court. The defence had pleaded guilty to the demolition, but on a technicality [that notice was n_ot given under S9(3)(d)]; the appeals agai~st the demolition sentences ·rook the form of a 'Newton hearing' in which evidence was heard to establish whether a defence could be argued on S9(3) (a), (6) or (c). the other appeals were to be dealt with by submissions, but before these could be-made the judge announced a. deferment of sentencing until 2 April 1993, and asked the defendants and the Council to agree a schedule of remedial works to return the buildings to their former condition (to be carried out to the Council's satisfaction before 22 March). This proposal was enthusiastically welcomed by the defence, much less so by the Council: while the judge's words were "the public good really requires restoration of these valuable buildings to their former condition", the legal interpretation was that this meant not full reinstatement to the condition prior to the unauthorised works, but only the carrying our of those remedial works included in the SI 06 Agreement (which was finally signed just before the hearing). In the ensuing flurry of courtroom negotiations we insisted, against our legal advice, that the schedule should at least include reinstatement of the lattice infill to the upper floor openings on the west side of the two-storey building (so preserving some at least of the former agricultural aspect of the building); this suggestion was opposed most strongly by the other side, but our counsel quoted Circular 8/87 (and in particular para VII. I of Appendix IV) to good effect. The judge decided in the Council's favour to the extent that the upper floor windows on the west side will have to be inward-opening and set back behind vertical bars. We came away from the court feeling very depressed, because the judge's approach seemed to have diluted the exemplary high fines imposed by the CONTEXT 36
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=