Successfulprosecution inNorthLondon Mike Brown explains the careful work needed to bring a successful case against a developer. Developer David Sharer was recently fined a total of £7,500 plus costs of £,574 for carrying out unauthorised works to Laurel Cottages, Totteridge Village in north London. Proceedings were instigated by the London Borough of Barnet after it was discovered that much of the internal joinery and many windows and doors had been removed and replaced. The properties are a pair of Grade II listed 18th century artisans' cottages in the heart of the Totteridge Conservation Area, a semi-rural area of Green Belt land in the middle of the Borough. The cottages had remained largely unaltered and, as such were important links with the area's rural past. This gave them considerable historic interest. Lengthy negotiations with a previous owner had led to the council giving listed building consent for the erection of two small single storey side extensions, one to each side, which were designed to be built off and sit behind the tall boundary wall which stretched to each side of the front elevation. There is some speculation that the cottages were later than the wall and had been built behind it with openings for windows and doors punched through. They hadgreatcharacter. Laurel Cottages, Totteridge, the subject of a successful prosecution of a developer for unauthorised alterations to a listed building .. The properties had been vacant for a number of years and repairs to the roof and general refurbishment were necessa1y to bring them back to a habitable condition. The Council had been pressing the owner to undertake the work and the LBC, which allowed a third bedroom (albeit at ground floor level) was seen as enabling development. Property values in the area are relatively high, reflecting the desirable environment and the close proximity to central London and it was hoped that with the economics now stacking up progress would be made. The owner, however, sold the properties to the developer towards the end of 1997. In December work began and ConContext 60 December 1998 se1vation Officers visited the site following reports from concerned local residents that despite the inclement weather the roof of one half of the property had been completely removed. Temporary measures to weather proof the building and design replacement timbering were quickly negotiated. There then followed a number of lengthy discussions on site where details of the nature and extent of acceptable repairs for each element of the building were agreed. It was left that the developer would apply for the replacement of a small metal window with a timber one to match the others. Given the circumstances it was decided not to prosecute on the roof works. No application was received and in April 1998 Conservation Officers visited the site and discovered that the advice given earlier had largely been ignored. All internal doors, architraves and skirtings had been removed and both cottages fitted out with off-theshelf modern joinery. Casements, sashes and many frames had been replaced (in some instances with very poor copies of the originals) as had the metal window. Photographic evidence was taken by a council enforcement officer. The developer was interviewed under caution at the council offices by the enforcement officer who fortunately is a retired City ofLondon Police Officer with considerable experience of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). This was clone on a systematic room by room, item by item basis (which took great patience). Indeed taking statements and preparing the evidence took up a considerable amount of officer time. Council valuers estimated that the unauthorised works had added £30,000 to the value of each property. 27
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=