C O N T E X T 1 0 5 : J U LY 2 0 0 8 41 Court. The judge in making his judgement said that ‘this court is concerned with the protection of our heritage’. He added that the owner had ‘breached planning regulations on a staggering scale and this is at the front of the court’s consideration’. With regard to sentencing, the judge made the following comments: ‘If I imposed a fine today, that would restrict his ability to put matters right. It is better that his resources be used to put things right.’ On the basis that the owner had pleaded guilty, sentencing was deferred, and the case adjourned until December 2007.The reason for deferring the case was to enable the judge to carry out a site inspection and to allow the owner time to progress the application process. In December the court date was again deferred, until March 2008. At this stage, given that no physical work has progressed it was felt unlikely that a sentence would be passed, although this is at the discretion of the judge. Research into the building’s history has proven critical.Archive material held at the Royal Commission, council records and a detailed analysis of the building have been essential. The detailed analysis carried out by Davies Sutton has proven invaluable to the process, as has strong input from the Georgian Group and the SPAB. The application now comprises some 35 separate plans including cross sections, joinery details and a schedule of architectural features, together with a detailed justification statement. Analysis of the changes to the historic building has allowed their full impact to be understood.The hallway had been significantly widened at the expense of one of the main reception rooms. At the end of the hallway, rather than terminating at a window that looked into a courtyard, the area was opened out and covered with a glazed roof. Within the former courtyard concrete columns were to be installed. The aim appeared to have been to increase the status of this area. Within the main house the windows had been changed and the slender character of the joinery lost. Routed details had found their way onto glazing bars. On rising through the Georgian house the usual diminishing architectural features had been replaced by over embellishment, with the addition of new plasterwork. While the vernacular cottage had not been a pure example of its kind, much of its fabric appeared to have been present prior to the work. The development undertaken by the new owner aimed at giving the building a thorough pseudo-Georgian makeover, raising its height, changing the staircase and connecting it to the main house, where previously it had been separated by a courtyard. Chamfered floor joists, stone slabs and lath-and-plaster were all removed. Throughout both buildings the extensive use of modern plaster, plasterboard, block work and reconstituted stone was evident. Original lath-andplaster had been taken down or skimmed over. Elsewhere new period details had been formed in MDF. At the site meeting with the judge in August it had been hoped that the application would have been submitted by the last week of September and determined by mid-December, so allowing restoration work to commence. Unfortunately however, the application was not submitted until the first week of December, some three months later than had been anticipated. At this stage it had been hoped to reach a speedy conclusion, determining the application well within the eight week schedule. Again this was not to be. Just before the Christmas break a dead bat was found, following which a brief survey by the Countryside Council for Wales indicated the presence of Whiskered/Brandt’s bats, Pipistrelle, brown long eared and potentially lesser horseshoe bats. With the now very urgent need for a bat licence and the need to incorporate habitats within the buildings, the process has been yet further delayed. With the agreement of contractors and the continual monitoring of the work by suitably qualified professionals, it is hoped that the conclusion to this long period of enforcement action will be the reinstatement of the building’s original form. Unfortunately, no amount of action can restore the historic fabric that has been lost. This enforcement case has resulted in a successful prosecution that has been the subject of much local and national newspaper coverage. Inevitably this has sent out a strong message which it is hoped may at least give pause for thought to owners considering unauthorised works.While the enforcement action has resulted from a loss of important historic fabric, the sequence of post-work events has been positive. Strong political support for enforcement and conservation within Monmouthshire has enabled decisive and firm action by the enforcement team. The sensible advice given to the defendant, combined with a considered judgement by the presiding judge, has enabled money to be focused on positive reconstruction. Finally the careful selection of a diligent and imaginative architectural team has led to the drafting of an appropriate scheme. The next phase could be equally difficult, involving the careful selection of crafts people by the owner, combined with rigorous monitoring of the work. Simon Robertshaw is conservation manager for Monmouthshire County Council. The former open courtyard. Precast columns now mark the line of the original rear wall.The aim had been to give the building a thorough pseudo-Georgian makeover. On 24 June listed building consent was granted for the restoration and alteration of the house. After much consideration the Assembly government issued a bat licence on 10 July. The architectural agent acting for the owner has now changed to Graham Frecknall of Monmouth.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=