Login Register

Developer fined for unlawful works

By mgrodentz  |  Posted: February 04, 2013

Comments (10)

A developer who carried out unlawful works to a listed building now faces fines and costs totalling almost £2,000.


Christopher Cave from Newnham on Severn pleaded guilty at Cheltenham Magistrates Court today (February 4) to the charge in connection to works at 141 Southgate Street in Gloucester – a Grade II listed building.


The works included:


· The demolition of an historic wall and doorway to create an enlarged room.

· Alterations to the main historic staircase.

· Damage to the ground floor entrance tiles, and,

· Loss of architectural details such as the lath and plaster ceiling, skirting and coving.


The works were undertaken without planning or listed building consent and the council's conservation officer considered them to have caused a harmful and negative impact on the special architectural and historic character of the property.


He was ordered to pay a fine of £250 and costs of £1,488.


Council Leader, Paul James, commented: " This case and the resulting fine should send out a very clear message to developers that they cannot 'rip apart' listed buildings at a whim.


" These buildings form a vital part of our heritage and we have a duty to see that they are preserved and that developers treat them with the sympathy that their age and importance requires."


He added: " Any owner, builder or developer who is in any doubt about works they propose to do on a listed building should contact the City Council's conservation team which will be happy to provide advice."

Read more from Gloucester Citizen

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters


  • cushtymann  |  February 05 2013, 9:15AM

    the same rules apply if the buildings are with in the vicinity of listed buildings, or in a conservation area. I think shire hall and Gloucester cathedral would make this in the vicinity. paul james has jumped on the bandwagon and got his picture in the press once again. how sad to lose some lathe and plaster and skirting ,parts that are only visible inside the property. the blue glos college building has destroyed the many years of historic regeneration in the docks area for ever. this I suppose this had the blessing from the likes of paul james I know where I would save the council thousands if given the opportunity.

    |   -1
  • GlosAnarchy  |  February 05 2013, 1:44AM

    The city council hasn't owned the building for the period it was in decay, at that point it was owned by the SWDA Westgate Street listed buildings http://tinyurl.com/a4lr69u MacDonalds 20-22 - not listed KFC 50 - not listed I also think that English Heritage doesn't like new buildings to be "fake" historic buildings because this will devalue the original buildings! I would also think that Paul was asked for comments or a sound byte for a press release as he is the leader of the council.....

    |   3
  • Chas_Townley  |  February 05 2013, 12:03AM

    Planning decisions including prosecution decisions are not matters for the Gloucester City Council Cabinet to interfere in; Why then is Paul James as Leader of the Council fronting this story. Is it a sign that the procedures are more honoured in the breach than their observance by Mr James and his buddies on the cabinet? A sure sign its time to get rid of the Cabinet system throughout the County.

  • cushtymann  |  February 04 2013, 8:49PM

    how pathetic I suppose it makes sense for the council to wait 10 years for the old pub in westgate street to rot, then they get all the publicity for its rescue. it was right under their noses for so long. now they will spend £350,000 and the rest of us must lose essential services like police that M.P. should be tarred and feathered for being a hipacrit instead of swanning around having his picture taken every week he should roll his sleaves up and start cleaning out that building and filling skips ,and earn his allowances mcdonalds and Kentucky are in listed buildings and also a conservation area , not much heritage intact there , and the blue glos college looks like a traditional docks mill building , you the council have done the real damage and it wont be put right

    |   -6
  • GlosAnarchy  |  February 04 2013, 6:59PM

    belchnfart Conservation areas cover the façades of buildings and the local environment. Listed buildings cover such things as the fabric of the building with things such as building construction and finishing methods. The fine is for not getting permission, he may and hope he has been served with notice to put the building back to it's original state, if he doesn't do this in the correct time frame then he may be taken to court again repeatedly and fined repeatedly until the works are carried out. He will also have walked away from court with a criminal record!

    |   8
  • belchnfart  |  February 04 2013, 6:34PM

    as long as the building remains structurely sound i see no problem with the owner of the property doing what he likes to it internally,if the facade of the building is not altered then whats the problem?

    |   -8
  • tishwash  |  February 04 2013, 6:32PM

    why not force him to make it right and/or do it yourself and make him pay ?

    |   6
  • Wazzamatter  |  February 04 2013, 5:29PM

    Hmmm. Less than £1800 altogether. That has to be a bargain. It would have cost him pretty much that amount to apply for the relevant permissions, which would have been refused, so the money would be lost, and he wouldn't have dared do the work. This sends out the wrong sort of message, doesn't it?

    |   10
  • Matt1006  |  February 04 2013, 5:09PM

    Quite, taylke. A pathetically-small fine. An extra zero on the end would be more like it. OK he's also got to pay costs of nearly £1,500, but even then the total is not enough. The LBC regulations are there for a reason, like it or not. Another example of somebody choosing to ignore the rules & regs. He must have known that the building was Listed, but even then ignorance is no defence. Wonder if he's done similar to other Listed buildings, and got away with it? And does he know about the Building Regulations, I wonder...? Developer, apparently. Other more-appropriate descriptions might be better.

    |   11
  • taylke  |  February 04 2013, 4:56PM

    £250 fine for wrecking a listed building. I'm sure all iffy developers are now quaking in their boots.

    |   13