A man who ‘off his own bat’ demolished his Grade II listed cottage – Nutter Cote Farm in Yorkshire – has been fined £17,500 (with some £3000 in costs), a fine so low that the IHBC considers it could make such heritage demolition ‘a viable development option’ despite its criminality.
The IHBC’s national Chair, James Caird, and Policy Committee Chair, Roy Lewis, issued a joint statement saying: ‘The IHBC is extremely disappointed at this low level of fine, which is wholly inadequate as a disincentive to people intent on demolishing listed buildings without either skilled professional assessment or listed building consent. Such low fines make demolition a viable development option!’
‘Destruction of our built heritage in this manner is irreversible as well as criminal, and should be taken much more seriously by the courts.’
IHBC Research consultant Bob Kindred – who maintains the IHBC’s database listing such prosecutions – also noted his surprise at the small size of the fine, not least given the owners un-supported decision to demolish. He said: ‘The Institute is aware of other cases where the fine and costs have together totaled around £200,000, which would seem to be a more appropriate amount for an illegal act of this nature’.
Background
David Eckersall had permission to extend his Grade II listed home in Thornton-in-Craven but pulled it down while his elderly neighbours, Geoff and Joan Peel, were on holiday. They returned home in April to find extensive damage to their home of more than 30 years and were forced to move out. The roof of their dining room had been removed and the outside wall of their bathroom replaced by a plasterboard sheet.
Judge Colin Burn said it was not possible to prove or disprove Eckersall’s claim that he only knocked down the building when it was clear there were severe structural failures emerging from the work he was doing.
He said the defendant then took the ‘catastrophic decision to knock down the whole building… You took the decision off your own bat to take down a Grade II listed building’.
The judge decided not to compensate Mr and Mrs Peel after hearing about ongoing litigation as any financial award he made could affect the total they are awarded by other authorities or courts.
The judge did note the irony that the best solution to Mr and Mrs Peel’s building issues would be to let Eckersall rebuild his property, and said: ‘If such a property were to be built you [Eckersall ] would, in effect, be profiting from your criminality.’
Read more at BBC News, BT UK News and The Daily Mail
See the IHBC’s Prosecutions database (follow the links)
