were between £55,000 to £70,000 per unit. Contemporary expected prices would be £57,000 to £83,000. Against this the company's building costs had risen to £½million and the company had to carry purchase costs for 16 months longer than it would have otherwise have done. Mr Griffiths further indicated that work on the building is not likely to begin until later in the year. He argued that the additional carrying costs amounted to £33,000 he argued that far from obtaining benefit the company had in fact suffered a serious loss which is in excess of £500,000. The Judge indicated that he was prepared to approach the case on the basis that the company had informal knowledge of the listing and it was their belief that they could demolish the building before they received formal notification and it would not be unlawful. Mr Robert Griffiths further went on to say the Company regretted the fact that they had unwittingly demolished the structure and apologised to the Court. He argued that at the time the company were wholly unaware that what they were doing was unlawful. He indicated the company had never been prosecuted before, that they had acted in good faith and had already suffered financially and by their reputation. In his judgement Judge T Crowther stated that the defendant company had brought the building for the sum of £350,000 and at the time it was not listed. The price obtained was with a view to the property being demolished and retirement homes being constructed. This would have produced a profit in the amount of £275,000. He went on to say that on 20 March 1996 the property was listed and the legal effect was that it could not be demolished. The practical and commercial effect of listing was a reduction in value to £250,000. The company faced a loss of £100,000 and a loss of its scheme. He stated that he was satisfied that, faced with that prospect and with informal knowledge of the listing on 21 March, the company made a deliberate decision to act in haste to defeat the effect of listing which was done sufficiently on the following day. He stated that he was satisfied that this was a cynical commercial decision, but it was not a deliberate intention to commit a criminal offence. Formal notification had not been given and he stated it was not plain in the Act that the offence was one of strict liability. He did not find that the company had the intention to commit the crime. As a result this did not make the penalty one in which he Context59 September1998 ought to consider a term of imprisonment, but one in which he ought to consider a fine. He then went on to consider Sub-Section 5 of Section 9 which refers to financial benefit. He explained that Parliament intended that no profit should be obtained from a breach. In reality instead of losing £100,000 on the resale of the property the company enabled itself to proceed with the original scheme and although it did incur extra costs for planning and the listed building inquiry the scheme was able to proceed. He found that extra costs would amount to £75,000, but by its action the company avoided losing £100,000 and saved its scheme. The company had produced a scheme which will not make the expected £275,000 but will nevertheless produce a profit of £200,000. He therefore found that the profit for the purposes of Section 9(5) was £200,000 and that the penalty should therefore be in that amount. There would not be a further element of punishment as this was the first time the company had been prosecuted and credit was given for their guilty plea. He therefore fined the company £200,000 and also awarded the prosecution costs of £12,979.17. After representations by Mr Robert Griffiths as to the time to pay, Mr Griffiths indicated that he would wish time to consider an appeal against sentence. The Judge therefore ordered that the fine should be paid within three months. The company did not appeal against this decision. As of June 1998, the site remains undeveloped. Fiona Cairns is Conservation Officer for Newport County Borough Council. 23
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=