1991 - in previous ownership. Subsequent investigations have revealed that double that number of changes are suspected but, owing to a lack of prior internal knowledge, these are impossible to prove. There are doubts about the opening up of a late mediaeval fireplace removing unknown later items, the relocating of the main staircase and the repositioning of timber-framed partitions. The Committee agreed to the recommendations .that enforcement notices be served in those cases where reinstatement or alleviation were practical. Prosecutions were authorised. PROSECUTIONS Thirty three summons were served on Mr and Mrs Gorman alleging 33 separate breaches of Section 9(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A hearing was set for 19 June 1995. On that day defending counsel submitted that there should only be one summons against for Mr and Mrs Gorman. This was accepted by the Stipendiary magistrate who ordered the Council to amend the prosecution to one summons The Council sought a· Judicial Review in the High Court and an appeal was held before MrJustice Popplewell who refused the application saying that, although the case raised an interesting argument of law, he considered that in reality the outcome would be the same whether there were 33 summonses or one. Thurrock decided to take no further action on this aspect. ENFORCEMENTNOTICESAND LISTEDBUILDINGAPPLICATIONS In January 1995, 14 Enforcement Notices were served. Of these, one was subsequentlywithdrawn. It concerned the removal of a small area of tile hanging and the insertion of a brace, but the latter subsequently proved to CONTEXT 53 1994 - unauthorised alterations in progress be original. Another notice was complied with immediately. Appeals were lodged against all the remaining notices and, in April 1995 a retrospective listed building application was made by the Anthony Blee Consultancy. This was the first knowledge that Thurrock had that professionals were being employed to deal with Old Hall. The application was scrutinised carefully by the Conservation Officer, the County adviser and Thurrocks's consultant, and it was agreed that (despite the fact that it consisted of four bound volumes of plans, notes and photographs), these illustrated works which were unacceptable for LBC but they were also inadequately detailed. The application was consequently not accepted as valid but the submitted plans did confirm that considerable internal works had been carried out. The Gormans then pursued a High Court Application to quash the Enforcement Notices on the grounds that they were a nullity. This action failed and Thurrock was awarded costs of £5,412.06. An appeal was lodged against the Enforcement Notices and subsequently a public inquiry was held at which the appellants were represented by another architect, Stephen Langer Associates. APPEALAGAINSTTHE LISTED BUILDING ENFORCEMENT NOTICES Eight of the notices sought restoration [s.38(2)(a) of the 1990 Act] and four notices sought alleviation of the effect of the works [s.38(2)(b)]. The appeals were on the various grounds set out in the Act, i.e. D that the works did not contravene listed building control; D that listed building consent should be granted; D that the requirements of the notices exceeded what would be necessary to restore the building to its condition before works were carried out; and D that steps described in the notices exceeded what would be necessary to alleviate the effect of the works. The appellants further argued that certain of the notices were nullities, in that they required matters to be subsequently agreed with the LPA. The requirements of the notices were amended by letter to the appellants six weeks before the inquiry. The Inspector held that the notices, as amended, were not nullities and then dealt with the listing and historic importance as explained by the Council (which he recognised as accurate) and then by confirming the existence of appropriate planning policies. APPEALDECISIONS The Inspector made the following decisions on the various notices. NOTICE A: This required the removal of a new entrance porch. ARGUMENT: LPA - that it was an alien element, badly built and detrimental to the character of the LB. Appellants - that it formed a visual link between the two builds, was in keeping and was built from salvaged materials. DECISION: That LBC was necessary but was not granted. That the porch be removed and the walls behind it, but the stone flagged threshold could remain. PPG 15 on porches was quoted. COMMENT: This was entirely as the LPA wished. NOTICEB:Required the removal of an inserted window adjoining the porch. ARGUMENT: Appellants held that the elevations were unbalanced and this window repeated the haphazard arrangement. In addition they contended that the window was a security feature supported bypolice advice (no evidence produced) to overlook visitors at the front door. TheLPA contended that this Continuea on page 13 9
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=