Grade I property vandalism

[Flyfisher]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7967951.stm

Officers are trying to decide whether it is criminal damage.
They said building regulations had been breached because no permission was obtained to paint the 16th Century property.

I can't see what it's got to do with building regulations but the lack of LBC would suggest a criminal offence.

Still, it looks reversible and certainly makes a welcome change from arson.

 

[JoceAndChris]

What a sloppy job they made of it, and yes, criminal damage in my opinion. Agree with you, though, that this is a better form of vandalism than most-at least it's witty. Reminds me of when boys broke into our school and sprayed all the tulips blue.

 

[biffvernon]

Can't see what the fuss is about. It's a lovely shade of pink. :wink:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Officers are trying to decide whether it is criminal damage.
They said building regulations had been breached because no permission was obtained to paint the 16th Century property.

My job would be far easier without this sort of sloppy journalism. It has nothing to do with building regulations, nor with planning permission - it's a listed building consent matter, and a listed building consent matter only.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Journalists engage mouth before brain in my experience of 'em...scoundrels. I never believe anything I read, it's all drama and no accuracy.

 

[biffvernon]

Over in Penners' end of East Anglia you'd probably need to apply for LBC not to have it in pig's blood pink.

 

[Flyfisher]

My job would be far easier without this sort of sloppy journalism. It has nothing to do with building regulations, nor with planning permission - it's a listed building consent matter, and a listed building consent matter only.

My understanding too, but this article refers to something called "Building Listing regulations" which is easily sub-edited to 'building regulations', so perhaps that's where the confusion arose?

I was a bit surprised it was a grade 1 building though. Must be something quite special but there's no mention of its history on the pub website - or perhaps that was more sloppy journalism. No, it must be true, it's on the internet. :wink:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Grade I & II listed buildings require permissions before they are re-painted.

If it's different (and depending on local discretion). Oh, and so do Grade II* listed buildings. "You can't trust a special like an old time copper when you can't find the list description for your home", as the music hall song doesn't have it.
Grade I? yes, I was surprised too, because the picture on the BBC website is of a very modest bit of what, watching the video clip, is a very large and grand timber-framed pub.
As for "we don't know if it's criminal damage", quite apart from the LB issues, if someone repainted my house without my permission, I'd expect the police to be a bit more alert about it than that.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Especially as it may cause a load of damage removing it. Terrible.

 

[Pford75]

My job would be far easier without this sort of sloppy journalism. It has nothing to do with building regulations, nor with planning permission - it's a listed building consent matter, and a listed building consent matter only.

Understand your frustration Gareth....although I do also believe this is a clear case of criminal damage. If the property was painted without the owners permission, then it is criminal damage. And if it is criminal damage, then I can't see how the owners could be reasonably prosecuted for not seeking listed building consent.

If the owners are required to return the colour to it's original, I would assume that they can claim on their buildings insurance for this work, since it has resulted from a criminal act?

 

[countrycott]

Especially as it may cause a load of damage removing it. Terrible.

Should be able to be removed with paint stripper, or why not just paint white back over it :?:

 

[Schoolmarm]

It might not be the right paint to adhere long term to the coat underneath the pink causing flaking and peeling or bubbling. Also the white underneath may have been lime or breathable and the pink may be silk vinyl. Not breathable and not the right stuff.

To remove the pink with minimal damge to other stuff could be very difficult.

 

[countrycott]

Its got to be one or the other hasn't it?

Even if its not easy to get off, its gonna have to be done...

So I just hope its reported in the news at some point its been resolved and returned to its former colour.

 

[Penners]

Over in Penners' end of East Anglia you'd probably need to apply for LBC not to have it in pig's blood pink.

That's a gross oversimplification. Different pigs, different pinks. :wink:

Officers are trying to decide whether it is criminal damage.
They said building regulations had been breached because no permission was obtained to paint the 16th Century property.

My job would be far easier without this sort of sloppy journalism. It has nothing to do with building regulations, nor with planning permission - it's a listed building consent matter, and a listed building consent matter only.

"... trying to decide..."??!

If a car is doing is doing 40mph in a 30 zone, it doesn't seem to take them long to decide to issue a penalty notice. But, vandalising a Grade I listed building.... hmmm. Should that be treated as criminal damage... or just a bit of a giggle?

Give me strength... :roll:

 

[Flyfisher]

[cynicism = on]
Ah, but speeding fines add to police revenues whereas this vandalism will just mean extra paperwork. Anyway Sarge, it's not proper vandalism, nothing has been smashed-up, it looks like a half-decent decorating job and the pink is quite a nice colour; what's all the fuss about . . . . ?
[cynicism = off]

Give you strength? Give us all strength!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

[cynicism = on]
Ah, but speeding fines add to police revenues whereas this vandalism will just mean extra paperwork. Anyway Sarge, it's not proper vandalism, nothing has been smashed-up, it looks like a half-decent decorating job and the pink is quite a nice colour; what's all the fuss about . . . . ?
[cynicism = off]

That's also how the magistrates' courts work when you bring an LB case to them - "I think it looks nice restored to its former glory in breezeblock and cement"

 

[Flyfisher]

 

[AMc]

If the perpetrators spray painted the back of a garage with a picture of a skateboard it would be criminal damage instantly - the fact that they painted a block of colour makes no difference - it's clearly the same offence.
Seems to me the local police seem unwilling to allocate a crime number when they know they have no chance of solving the case.