Listed Buildings Prosecutions Database Commentary

12 135 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