LAW & PRACTICE Magistrates. Our legal colleagues were more cheerful, and on reflection some important and positive resulcs have been achieved. between the employer and the contractor by architects to the satisfaction of the Council). though, about the precise legal status of an amendment to a Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent which has been suggested by a judge but which has not been formally approved by the planning authority! The judge's ruling has both attributed value to these curtilage buildings, and ensured their reinstatement by 22 March 1993. While virtually all the works would have had to be carried out under the terms of the S 106 Agreement, there would have been no legal means to compel reinstatement within a rime limit if the permission were not implemented. Should the works not be carried out to the Council's full satisfaction, it is clear that the judge will take a very strong line indeed. Th is should be a powerful safeguard for the quality of the works (we had been so concerned about the owner's previous disregard of his architects and their approved drawings that a clause in the Sl 06 Agreement provides for the supervision of the works in accordance with the RIBA contract, and administration of the contract The fact remains that we will not secure a return to the situation prior ro the unauthorised works. My particular regret is the flue on the west elevation: I feel sure chat, in the normal circumstances of negotiating prior to works being carried out, it would have been possible to devise a less incongruou~ heating installation, perhaps making use of the chimney (rebuilt to match) of the single-storey building. I had hoped to conclude that total fines of £21,500 formed a clear, quotable precedent, but following the appeal hearing, the judge will not impose a fine if the works are done to the satisfaction of the Council. The appeal hearing highlighted yet again the importance of Circular 8/87 and Appendix IV (I am sure it was this detailed technical advice which led to the judge's requirement for the domestic character of the windows to be mitigated). I do wonder, This thought leads on to a broader concern that such a matter has to be decided by a tribunal in which neither magistrates not Crown Court Judges receive any specific training in relation to environmental offences. The difficulty of the current system is highlighted in Robert Carnwath's article in the September issue of JPL (p.799). He argues for the introduction of something similar to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has a jurisdiction combining appeal, judicial review and enforcement functions in relation to nominated environmental and planning laws. HEAVY FINE FOR UNAUTHORISED WINDOW REPLACEMENT John Preston, Cambridg, City Council say, there were simulacra of glazing bars sandwiched within the sealed units. These box sashes were in an early 18th century front block added to a medieval hall and crosswing core. Most other windows had Readers will be interested in a recent The case relates to a Grade II* listed much later central-bar-type casements. successful prosecution in Wycombe District farmhouse near Hughenden Manor, north The early 18th century block has fine in which both the owner and the uPVC of High Wycombe. All the windows and panelled rooms and window reveals with window contractor were fined in Aylesbury most of the doors-though fortunately not folding shutters. In one upstairs room is a Crown Court, Caradon Everest was fined the 18th century front door-were replaced scheme of mid 18th century wall painting £5,000 plus £3,800 costs and the owner by uPVC ones. Of particular concern was of hunting scenes and classical landscapes: fined £250 plus £200 costs. His Honour the loss of the box sashes which were clearly the installed windows did little to Judge Morton Jack in passing sentence replaced by top-hung casements, both the enhance these high-quality interiors and made it clear that he regarded Ca radon upper and lower ones hinged. Needless to made the offence all the more damaging. Everest as principally to blame: a national The unauthorised alterations had been company should have known better. The spotted by my predecessor, David Audcent, _levelof the fines and award of Council costs ~~~;~~dgji:=:================== in 1988, and pressure brought to bear to underlined this view. r=='3~~~~~~~~= secure their reversal. However afrer nearly ii;~}i=~;,;fi;;;,r::J;;;,"";;;,"";;;,-:-d two years it was clear that nothing was Grade11•listedfarmhouse beforewindows were replaced. Inset: cutting.from the Bucks Free Press, 11 July 1992. CONTEXT 36 " going to happen and I initiated prosecution and enforcement action. We were determined that not only the owner but also the contractor should be proceeded against and this delayed matters to ensure that we followed the correct legal procedures, particularly as the company had changed from Everest to Caradon Everest which complicated matters somewhat. Eventually in February this year the case came to the magistrate's court for an oldstyle committal. Caradon Everest pleaded not guilty, but by the time the case came to Crown Court both parties had entered pleas of guilty. In the meantime enforcement action was proceeding, but only on the sash windows and one dormer for which photographic evidence was available. To date two sashes have been replaced as 25
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=