{"id":4914,"date":"2012-10-19T16:21:46","date_gmt":"2012-10-19T16:21:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=4914"},"modified":"2012-10-22T14:33:12","modified_gmt":"2012-10-22T14:33:12","slug":"listed-building-penalty-halved","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=4914","title":{"rendered":"Culprit in CA building demolition, to save VAT, has costs & fine more than halved"},"content":{"rendered":"

A developer who demolished a Victorian villa in a Conservation Area (CA) and replaced it with a modern replica, to save VAT, has had his penalty for violating planning laws more than halved.<\/span><\/p>\n

Piers Rance removed so many of the walls of the building, on Cloncurry Street, Fulham, in West London, that its front elevation became unstable and had to be demolished. Faced with the Health and Safety Executive\u2019s view that the part-destroyed house was dangerous, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham finally granted consent for him to demolish the house. He then built a new home that was almost identical to the original.<\/p>\n

Rance was given a \u00a3120,000 fine and a \u00a3100,000 costs bill in December 2010 after he admitted an offence under the Planning (Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas) Act 1990. However, the Court of Appeal has now cut his fine to \u00a350,000, and the costs bill to \u00a340,000, after the property developer said the property recession had left him with no assets and more than \u00a32.7m in debt.<\/p>\n

The London Borough of Hammershith and Fulham describes the case as follows<\/span>:<\/p>\n

We prosecuted the owner (Mr Rance) because he deliberately demolished the whole property despite only receiving planning permission for extensions, including a new basement. [The Borough] successfully argued in court that the reason Rance demolished the building, rather than extending it, was to save on the VAT payments…<\/p>\n

Rance fought… all the way arguing that he did not intend to demolish the building but had to do so because of health & safety concerns. He was found guilty in the Magistrates Court but because of the seriousness of the offence the Judge passed sentencing up to the Crown Court (the magistrates court have.. [a] limit on the fine) and the Judge felt this offence justified a higher fine.<\/p>\n

In the Crown Court, Mr Rance successfully argued for the opportunity to appeal the decision which was granted by the Judge. As such, [the Borough] had to go through the whole process again at considerable expense to the Council. Again Mr Rance lost the case and he was eventually sentenced to pay \u00a3120k as a fine and \u00a3100k for the Council’s costs.<\/p>\n

Mr Rance then appealed against the level of his fine and… his fine was reduced to \u00a350k and [the borough’s] costs reduced to \u00a340k. This was despite the Judges acknowledging in their decision that Mr Rance had deliberately concealed his considerable wealth and transferred all his properties into his wife’s name to avoid paying the fine….<\/p>\n

To put this in context, Mr Rance’s legal fees for conducting his two trials was in excess of \u00a3350k whereas [the Borough’s] were limited to \u00a3100k. This covered all our legal costs including a barrister, QC for the second trial and expert witnesses. Even the \u00a3100k we were awarded did not cover our full costs.<\/p>\n

When [the Borough was] given a viewing of the Judges written decision [their] barrister wrote to the Judges to ask them to reconsider their proposed reduction in our costs, but they declined to do so.<\/p>\n

Search Planning Portal<\/span>: LINK<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

A developer who demolished a Victorian villa in a Conservation Area (CA) and replaced it with a modern replica, to save VAT, has had his penalty for violating planning laws more than halved.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Piers Rance removed so many of the walls of the building, on Cloncurry Street, Fulham, in West London, that its front elevation became unstable and had to be demolished. Faced with the Health and Safety Executive\u2019s view that the part-destroyed house was dangerous, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham finally granted consent for him to demolish the house. He then built a new home that was almost identical to the original.<\/p>\n

Rance was given a \u00a3120,000 fine and a \u00a3100,000 costs bill in December 2010 after he admitted an offence under the Planning (Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas) Act 1990. However, the Court of Appeal has now cut his fine to \u00a350,000, and the costs bill to \u00a340,000, after the property developer said the property recession had left him with no assets and more than \u00a32.7m in debt.<\/p>\n


\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The London Borough of Hammershith and Fulham describes the case as follows:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

We prosecuted the owner (Mr Rance) because he deliberately demolished the whole property despite only receiving planning permission for extensions, including a new basement. [The Borough] successfully argued in court that the reason Rance demolished the building, rather than extending it, was to save on the VAT payments…<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Rance fought… all the way arguing that he did not intend to demolish the building but had to do so because of health & safety concerns. He was found guilty in the Magistrates Court but because of the seriousness of the offence the Judge passed sentencing up to the Crown Court (the magistrates court have.. [a] limit on the fine) and the Judge felt this offence justified a higher fine.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In the Crown Court, Mr Rance successfully argued for the opportunity to appeal the decision which was granted by the Judge. As such, [the Borough] had to go through the whole process again at considerable expense to the Council. Again Mr Rance lost the case and he was eventually sentenced to pay \u00a3120k as a fine and \u00a3100k for the Council’s costs.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Mr Rance then appealed against the level of his fine and… his fine was reduced to \u00a350k and [the borough’s] costs reduced to \u00a340k. \u00a0This was despite the Judges acknowledging in their decision that Mr Rance had deliberately concealed his considerable wealth and transferred all his properties into his wife’s name to avoid paying the fine…. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

To put this in context, Mr Rance’s legal fees for conducting his two trials was in excess of \u00a3350k whereas [the Borough’s] were limited to \u00a3100k. This covered all our legal costs including a barrister, QC for the second trial and expert witnesses. Even the \u00a3100k we were awarded did not cover our full costs.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

When [the Borough was] given a viewing of the Judges written decision [their] barrister wrote to the Judges to ask them to reconsider their proposed reduction in our costs, but they declined to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A developer who demolished a Victorian villa in a Conservation Area (CA) and replaced it with a modern replica, to save VAT, has had his penalty for violating planning laws more than halved. Piers Rance removed so many of the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4914","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4914","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4914"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4914\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4925,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4914\/revisions\/4925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}