Gotcha!!!

[Gareth Hughes]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...record-pound-80000-fine-for-flouting-rules.do

Probably didn't help his case by claiming he didn't know he didn't have permission to demolish the house, while also being a well-established local developer who really ought to know about such things...

But even though £80,000 is a record, it's not punitive when you look at the sums.

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Personally I would have preferred to see hung, drawn and quartered. What an outrage.

 

[CatherineB]

So will he be made to rebuild?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Good question. How could it be rebuilt?

What terrible man, I curse him. I'm sure Vicky will join me and then he really had better watch out! :evil:

 

[Nigel Watts]

How could it be rebuilt?

My guess is that it could never be rebuilt as it was because building regulations would not allow the solid brick walls, the single glazed windows, the absence of self-closing fire doors, the too-low handrail on the stairs, the poor disability access etc.

The house will no doubt be rebuilt in a modern style using modern materials with a pastiche Regency front to appease the planners. £80k plus £24k legal cost will be nothing for the developer who will be able to sell the finished article for several million.

Rich Londoners, on the whole, dont much value period features and they like mod-cons but they also want the prestige of living in a sought-after area (even if they are helping to destroy it, which of course their vanity would prevent them from noticing). Someone will pay a handsome sum for the finished house and be very happy with it, even though it will be a shadow of its former self.

 

[Flyfisher]

I know it cannot be rebuilt in a heritage sense, what's lost is lost forever, but I do think they should be made to build as close a replica as modern materials and current building regs would allow, as part of the punishment.

As Gareth pointed out, £80k might be a record fine but it's probably not such a big deal considering the overall development project. Having to rebuild an exact replica would likely put a bigger spanner in their works.

 

[Moo]

Just what I was thinking, FF.
With the added proviso that all the woodwork would have to be of the same type and quality as the original, plus replica working chimneys and fireplaces, plus all the latest (expensive) things like ground-source heat pumps to bring it up to modern environmentally friendly modern standards.
Not difficult to monitor, with next door as an example.

 

[robgil]

He was also ordered to pay the £42,500 cost of Richmond council taking legal action against him.

42K :shock: Councils taking the p*ss if you ask me. It cost 80 quid to take someone to the small claims.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

He was also ordered to pay the £42,500 cost of Richmond council taking legal action against him.

42K :shock: Councils taking the p*ss if you ask me. It cost 80 quid to take someone to the small claims.

Have you any idea how much I charge for an hour of my time? :wink:

 

[robgil]

He was also ordered to pay the £42,500 cost of Richmond council taking legal action against him.

42K :shock: Councils taking the p*ss if you ask me. It cost 80 quid to take someone to the small claims.

Have you any idea how much I charge for an hour of my time? :wink:

I am sure I would be in tears reading one of your invoices Gareth, although I am also sure it would be money well spent.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

He was also ordered to pay the £42,500 cost of Richmond council taking legal action against him.

42K :shock: Councils taking the p*ss if you ask me. It cost 80 quid to take someone to the small claims.

Have you any idea how much I charge for an hour of my time? :wink:

Ok OK = fifty quid Gareth and we'll buy you lunch as well. :wink:

 

[middi]

The law should be changed regading demolition of habitable LB without consent.

1) A hefty fine equal to the current habitable market value of the property

2) Only an exact replica of the existing should be allowed to be erected with a permanent plaque displayed with the inscription of the vandal that caused the damage.

Middi

 

[robgil]

And the hefty fine should be distributed amongst the surrounding homes to pay for their inconvenience. The law should be given to the people it effects and not those who would try to make a profit from it.

 

[Penners]

Have you any idea how much I charge for an hour of my time?

Interesting question from a CO!!

A bunch of fivers in a plain brown envelope? :wink:

 

[Penners]

If we were really serious about protecting heritage architecture from this kind of flagrant vandalism, then surely the only real disincentive would be legal confiscation of the site, so that the demolisher is "fined" the sum that he paid for the building and is unable to profit from its redevelopment.

OK, I'm sure there are a thousand legal obstacles to this idea - but it would bloody well work!

 

[skier-hughes]

Great idea, the council has the money from the fine to rebuild a house, sell it, makes a decent profit, builds some social housing and gets people off the streets, I'd vote for that!