+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style (/showthread.php?tid=611)
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - the invisible man - 15th October 2007
Interesting case - if indeed the contractor demolished the gatheouses by accident (could happen to anyone - don't you just hate it when that happens!!) why was the architect fined a greater sum than the contractor? More to this than meets the eye, I fancy.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone.
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - Winders - 15th October 2007
The architect was fined an additional £5k for a breech of condition on the listed building consent for the demolition of surrounding modern extensions. From Westminster BC's press release, he was supposed to have provided a schedule of works prior to works commencing.
Conservation says no
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - Gog - 18th October 2007
25k is hardly a problem for an architect - they use 100 quid notes as bog roll.
Being a pal of Prince Charles, he should be careful of being so cavalier (is that a pun?) about relics from the past!
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - the invisible man - 18th October 2007
With respect, 25k is a considerable sum for any architectural practice, and architects are nowhere near as well off as you imply (presumably tongue in cheek). I would imagine that Mr Terry is relatively 'comfortable' but 25k is still a large dent in his insurance.
What is remarkable is that he made such a mistake in the first place. Obviously I know of Mr Terry, and frankly do not hold him in very high esteem, but a basic error such as that described in the earlier post seems incredible. What on earth contact documents did he issue, I wonder? The AUP prevents me opining further.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone.
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - Oxbeast - 18th October 2007
For all I know, there are limits on the fine that can be imposed.
Of course, now all his clients and potential clients will have heard about this blunder, so the loss of business can't be measured.
And there might be penalties for a time over run, and it'll take time to rebuild what was destroyed.
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - drpeterwardle - 18th October 2007
I think you are all forgetting some basics such as the fine is proportional to the financial gain. Similarly he may not get PI insurance or face disciplinary action so in a sense the fine is a small part of the loss.
We also do not know the full circumstances of the case or the mitigating circumstances.
Dr Peter Wardle
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - Winders - 19th October 2007
Oxbeast: the 1990 Planning and Listed Buildings Act states that on conviction in a crown court, the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine or two years jail time. 20k or 6 months in jail is the limit in a magistrate's court. Looking through the past ten years of prosecutions in Mynors, £55k in total is very high, even for demolition.
Advice I have seen recommends prosecuting architects as well as contractors in situations like this, partly due to the issues it can cause an architect with RIBA membership (who should also know better).
Conservation says no
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - historic building - 21st October 2007
The good bit of listed buildings prosecutions is the cost of putting the building back correctly. One of the better recent LB cases was a modernist house in Weybridge (I think), surrey, which was demolished without consent. The land under this house was judged to have returned to be greenbelt making the land utterly worthless. This really is probably one of the largest listed building fines.
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - Winders - 4th September 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7596609.stm
Total cost to the owner: £450,000 repair bill, £40,000 fine and £8,000 court costs.
Judge David Wynn Morgan said: "When the press got hold of your story they described your treatment of one of the loveliest old houses in that part of Monmouthshire as if it were a property in the Footballers' Wives television series.
"It would be patronising of the court to endorse that judgment, but having seen what was planned I am bound to say the comparison is not inapt.
"Features that were intended to improve had been added without consideration or sympathy, rather like painting a moustache on an old master or adding a drum and bass track to music written by Mozart."
Looking through the case history it appears that the £40k was for breach of the enforcement notice served last year...
Listed Building - Footballers Wive's style - RedEarth - 4th September 2008
I thought I had finally become numb to insensitive 'improvements' to historic buildings, Listed or not, having seen enough small scale versions of the same sort of thing. I feel slightly queezy!