ProsecutioSnt:elvioHouse, BassalegRoad,Newport Fiona Cairns reports on a successful prosecution for unlawful demolition. Developers McCarthy & Stone were recently fined £200,000, plus costs of £13,000, for partially demolishing what was one of Newport's most important historic buildings, Stelvio House. The fine follows criminal proceedings, instigated by Newport County Borough Council against the developers who ignored the listed status of the building. Stelvio House, in Bassaleg Road, was the home of the important 19th century Newport industrialist, Charles H Bailey and was spot listed on 20 March 1996 by Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments in recognition of its architectural and historic importance. McCarthy & Stone, after being notified by Council planners that the building had been spot listed, sent in demolition contractors in the early hours of the morning of 21 March 1996. The front part of the building was demolished before Council officials could stop works on the site. The Council resolved to prosecute McCarthy & Stone. The case for plea and mode of trial was heard at the Magistrates Court on 17 December 1997. McCarthy & Stone pleaded guilty to an unauthorised alteration to a listed building. The Council argued that in view of the nature of the crime, the case should be heard at Crown Court, where the possible fine is unlimited. The Magistrates accepted this and the case was committed to the Crown Court. The case was heard in the Crown Court on 30January where the defendants requested a postponement to March. The case was eventually heard on March 12 1998. Newport County Borough Council was represented by Mr Toby Davey, Barrister and the defendants were represented by Robert Griffiths, QC. The hearing took place before His Honour Judge T Crowther. Alternative charges under Section 9 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Areas Act 1990 had been made against the defendants to take into account the effect of the Shimzu case. The Defendants were alternatively charged with caus22 ing to be executed works for the alteration of a listed building and causing works to be executed for the demolition of a listed building. At an earlier hearing the defendants had indicated that they would plead guilty to the charge of causing unauthorised alterations but not guilty to the charge of demolishing Stelvio House. Pleas were, therefore, entered on that basis. Mitigation in respect of the guilty plea took place on 12 March 1998. At the hearing before the Judge, Mr Davey, indicated the purpose behind the 1990 Act and argued that, as an established principle of the law: once a building had been listed (even if the owner was not aware of the listing), ignorance was no defence as it was an offence of strict liability. The Judge asked whether the purpose behind the Act was to create a situation to deter others in the future and make sure that the breach could not produce a profit. Mr Davey then referred to the factual background to the case as set out in the statements and argued that the company's actions were deliberate and made on the 21 March 1996, to try to demolish the building in the knowledge that it had been listed. He further argued that there was no suggestion in correspondence received prior to the prosecution stating that the defendants knew it had been listed, but did not realise it was an offence to demolish the building unless they had written notification of the listing. Mr Davey then addressed the financial benefit (or otherwise) thecCompany may have made from the partial demolition. He indicated that the defendants had paid £350,000 for the premises and the effect of listing had reduced the value by £100,000. He then took into account the various figures set out in attached statements and indicated that in the Council's view the defendants had made a profit in the order of £273,000. Prosecution's costs in this matter amounted to £12,979.17. Mr Robert Griffiths, QC acting for the defendants indicated that it was not well known that an offence could be committed in respect of a listed building even if it was not known that it had been listed. He went through the various sections under the Act and stated that the Planning Agent, Mr Day had taken the view in the light of the Act that notice of listing was essential before a breach occurred. It was argued that it was understandable that anyone else without legal knowledge may not realise that notice of listing was not required in order for an offence to be committed. He indicated that the defendants did not receive formal notice of listing until 27 March 1996, that CADW was aware that problems might arise and had therefore, sent a letter addressed to Stelvio House itself regarding the informal listing. As the notice had been sent to an unoccupied building, it had not been received by the defence. The defendants had apparently written to CADW for informal notification which was received on 28January. Mr Griffiths argued that the Court should treat this as a case in which the company genuinely believed the building was not protected until they had received formal notification of listing. He then went on to consider the question of the financial value or benefit the company may have accrued. He referred to the Council's consultant valuer's statement indicating that as a result of listing the value would have dropped by £100,000. He argued that the value would have dropped by more than that as there was an immediate loss from the spot-listing that did not take into account the consequential loss and ignored (for example) the loss of value due to the listing, additional planning costs, the effect of the notice delaying the completion of the development in the required time period, other legal and expert's costs. He also argued that as the Company did not receive listed building consent until February 1998, this had caused a significant loss to the Company. He indicated that in October 1995, the average sale prices which could be expected for the proposed scheme Context 59 September 1998
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=