16thC timber frame knocked down for £200!!!

[Moo]

In today's Times:

"Councillor fined

A parish council chairman who partially demolished a historic 17th-century listed cottage has been fined £4,000 with £4,000 costs.
Gerald Kinahan, a general contractor, claimed he had no idea it was listed when a mystery man offered him £200 to knock the front off the empty timber-framed building."

 

[Nemesis]

Well that will do the trick then.

How much can be made from developing the site?

 

[skier-hughes]

Quite a bit, but I supose we have to see if any proceedings are brought against the owner of it first, or if they ever approve any plans.....

 

[Nemesis]

Compulsory purchase and use as an open space I am afraid I can't think there is any legislation to allow in these circumstances.

Re-development - that may require a public inquiry, as happened with Greenside. A great public fuss would have to be made. The only reason that wasn't allowed in that case was as it was against planning policy to develop in the area. There may actually be no lawful reason for the local authority not to grant permission - it's a brownfield site...

Unless the owner can be proved in court to have been in on a crime... and a criminal is not supposed to benefit from such a crime.

Complex really.

 

[Moo]

Are there any private eyes on the forum?

 

[NT]

Tough one isnt it. If one applied the rules applied to murder cases, maybe a guilty verdict could be obtained. Means, motive, oportunity... all point clearly enough.

Separately to that, presumably a rebuld of the original can be insisted on, since its listed. If no rebuild the owner is in the end responsible, and legal remedy can be sought, though how much that would amount to...


NT

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.tomflynn.co.uk/MBSaltings.html

 

[BMcD]

NT wrote:

If one applied the rules applied to murder cases, maybe a guilty verdict could be obtained. Means, motive, oportunity... all point clearly enough.

Surely in law one is always presumed innocent until proven guilty and having the means motive and opportunity to commit a crime does not make you guilty and is merely circumstantial not submitable evidence? It may be the mysterious man with £200.00 had a score to settle and hoped his actions would land the owner in gaol.

Any way must go, I've been gutting trout and the smell of fish is getting a bit much!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The same parish councillor hits the headlines again...

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=crook-slur-ko-for-councillor---&method=full&objectid=18606373&siteid=93463-name_page.html

:shock:

 

[rog and gina]

I know the chap who did the shouting, good on him, he also owns a listed building near the demolished property, and has done lots of caring work on it. I'm sure he wont let it go quietly, if there is something to be found out he'll do it!
fingers crossed they'll get any development halted for a while.

 

[rog and gina]

The latest from local paper

Taken from Cheltenham echo....
10:30 - 28 February 2007
Gerald Kinahan has been told to pay £8,000 for smashing up an old cottage.Kinahan drove his digger into Oak House in Apperley - the third oldest house in the village dating from the 17th century.


He said he had no idea the building was listed, or that the mysterious "Mr Hardley" who offered him £200 to do the work was not the owner.

Kinahan, chairman of Chaceley Parish Council, claimed he was an "unwitting pawn" in real owner Ruth Greenshield's plan to demolish the building so she can build houses there, Cirencester magistrates heard.

But magistrates found him guilty of partly demolishing the cottage without listed building consent and fined him £4,000 with £4,000 costs.

Chairman of the bench John Dew, said: "You acted on ill-informed advice and you took no steps to establish the ownership of the property.

"In your favour you made no financial gain other than a possible £200 and you stopped the work as soon as you were told that what you were doing was not right."

Earlier, defence barrister Rhodri Williams told the court Kinahan, 59, was caught up in a plan by Mrs Greenshield to damage the already fire-ravaged timbered house so that the council would allow her to build new homes to fund its repair.

Such a scheme had earlier been rejected by the council because the state of the building was not considered severe enough.

Mr Williams said: "He was an unwitting pawn. It's impossible to reach any other conclusion than that the landowner instructed him - via an intermediary - to do the works.

"The worse the state of the property the more likely the council would be to grant her application to develop the land.

"We learn today that she has now lodged an application.

"Her chances must have been increased by what happened that day.

"She's the winner. He's the loser. It's appalling for his reputation.

"He has no criminal convictions and has suffered enough."

The magistrates heard character evidence from Anthony Saxton, who runs a conservatory business in the village, that Mr Kinahan was "the nicest man in the village".

Mr Saxton said: "When there is a marquee that needs putting up, or the village hall needs work, or a pig roast has to be organised or a Father Christmas is wanted, then Gerald Kinahan is your man.

"If your car breaks down in a ditch or your fence is blown down he would be the first man on the scene.

"Hundreds of people hold him in high regard."

William Morris, chairman of Deerhurst Parish council, told the court: "Villagers were appalled when Mrs Greenshield did not face prosecution instead of Mr Kinahan.

"The villagers felt that Mrs Greenshield should be prosecuted for the actions that took place.

"We have still not recovered from the fire at the cottage in 2002. For Mrs Greenshield to get away with it, villagers were very upset and she should be taken to task.

"When people heard Mr Kinahan was being prosecuted we felt he was being dealt with very unfairly. He was just instructed by a contractor and he was the easiest one to go for."

The court had been told during Kinahan's two-day trial that Mrs Greenshield, from Quedgeley, was not prosecuted because there was no evidence to link her with the demolition work.

After the hearing a spokesman for Tewkesbury Borough Council, which brought the prosecution, said the council would take enforcement action to get the cottage rebuilt.

"We trust that the decision of the court will send a clear message to those involved in such works on historic buildings with them must check carefully that the works have been authorised by the council."

Last week Ruth Greenshield submitted an application to Tewkesbury Borough Council for planning permission for 14 houses in the field next to Oak House.

Her application has been made jointly with the Tewkesbury-based Severn Vale Housing Society and has yet to be considered.

 

[Nemesis]

William Morris, chairman of Deerhurst Parish council,

Seems somehow appropriate!

I suspect the previous one who was one of the founders of SPAB wouldn't be too pleased either.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The latest from local paper

Taken from Cheltenham echo....
10:30 - 28 February 2007
The magistrates heard character evidence from Anthony Saxton, who runs a conservatory business in the village, that Mr Kinahan was "the nicest man in the village".

Mr Saxton said: "When there is a marquee that needs putting up, or the village hall needs work, or a pig roast has to be organised or a Father Christmas is wanted, then Gerald Kinahan is your man.

"If your car breaks down in a ditch or your fence is blown down he would be the first man on the scene.

"and if you want your listed building wrecking and no questions asked, he's the very chap"

what an idiot.

 

[Nemesis]

Allegedly.

 

[skier-hughes]

He's been succesfully prosecuted so it's not even allegedly.....

I wonder who will be paying his fine and costs? Suspicious mind that I have the deal could have been for her to pay any costs involved if it went that far. If I was the police down there I'd want to check finiancial records of both parties to see what happens!!!

£8k is a drop in the ocean to what she could make.

 

[Nemesis]

Depends really on which of the two Gareth was referring to as an idiot!

 

[skier-hughes]

I suppose he could be referring to Mr Saxton......

 

[Nemesis]

Quite.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I suppose he could be referring to Mr Saxton......

actually, your honour, I was referring to the naive Mr Kinahan

 

[Nemesis]

I think both really - allegedly!

Not great to be the character witness for the guilty party.