Amersham pub demolition lands firm £1,500 fine

The site of the former Red Lion pub after it was demolished in July The site of the former Red Lion pub after it was demolished in July

A PROPERTY developer demolished an Amersham pub before it was supposed to because it wasn't expecting to receive written permission from the council, a court heard.

The Red Lion in Chestnut Lane was torn down last July, days after it had been sold to development firm Clearview Homes.

Today the company pleaded guilty to an offence under the Building Act as they had not waited the statutory six weeks before carrying out the work.

But their legal representative Andrew Harman told Amersham magistrates the firm, based in Northwood, was not expecting to hear anything from Chiltern District Council and went ahead with the demolition work.

And he questioned the prosecution, which landed the company with a £1,500 fine, saying it was not in the public interest.

Mr Harman said: "The law requires them [Clearview] either to have a response from the council or to wait six weeks before they do anything. I'm afraid they are more used to working in London Boroughs, who simply do not respond to such notices and it is pointless calling up.

"Chiltern are not like that. The research is clear: Chiltern do respond.

"They apologise for not knowing Chiltern are better than others. There was nothing sinister intended."

Mr Harman said Clearview's culpability was low because the firm - which has an annual turnover of £15million - had actually served notice to demolish to the council.

The court heard when demolition work started on July 7 a concerned neighbour called the police. Officers returned two days later and workers were told no further demolition work was to be carried out - but the rest of the building was torn down on July 12.

Iftah Nawaz, prosecuting, told magistrates Chiltern District Council's building officer sent a letter to Clearview Homes and Wenman Demolition - who were subcontracted to carry out the work - to invite them for interviews regarding the demolition.

She said neither company attended but in an email Clearview director Stephen Murphy said he had sought legal advice and was prepared to answer questions in writing. A letter was sent but no response was received, Mrs Nawaz said.

In response Mr Harman said Clearview wanted to carry out the work as soon as possible to avoid having to contend with possible squatters, and because of concerns over rate payments.

He added demolition work was carried out on a Saturday so children at nearby Chestnut Lane School would not be affected by the noise.

Clearview Homes was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay costs of £1,410 to Chiltern District Council, which brought the prosecution, after admitting to contravening two sections of the 1984 Building Act.

A similar charge against Hampshire-based Wenman Demolition was withdrawn in court.

Comments (5)

11:36pm Wed 6 Feb 13

JOHNHEALY says...

I bet clearview homes are quaking in their boots with this fine and the costs which will make nil impact on the profit they will make from developing this site.
I bet clearview homes are quaking in their boots with this fine and the costs which will make nil impact on the profit they will make from developing this site. JOHNHEALY

11:42am Thu 7 Feb 13

lostinmarlow says...

Make them rebuild it and wait the required period of time. See what that does.
Make them rebuild it and wait the required period of time. See what that does. lostinmarlow

12:24pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Malc London says...

I was thinking the same thing.

Many companies demolish buildings because the fine is so small, it's just part of the development costs.

I did hear of a listed building being demolished in Harrow to make way for housing. From an economic sense, it was worthwhile paying the fine.
I was thinking the same thing. Many companies demolish buildings because the fine is so small, it's just part of the development costs. I did hear of a listed building being demolished in Harrow to make way for housing. From an economic sense, it was worthwhile paying the fine. Malc London

1:00pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Amersham-Normal!! says...

How about Clearview Homes, dont build any homes on this site.

The knew they were ripping out part of the community, so give something back, how about a nursery at their cost, who cares if it isn't economically viable, at least they don't get what they want.

And, £1500!? that's the fit out cost of a bathroom to them, on a proposed 9 house site. Personally I hope the build is plagued with as many issues as possible,
How about Clearview Homes, dont build any homes on this site. The knew they were ripping out part of the community, so give something back, how about a nursery at their cost, who cares if it isn't economically viable, at least they don't get what they want. And, £1500!? that's the fit out cost of a bathroom to them, on a proposed 9 house site. Personally I hope the build is plagued with as many issues as possible, Amersham-Normal!!

11:37pm Thu 7 Feb 13

wayneo says...

I actually thought it was unlawful to profit from criminal activity; if Clearview, by demolishing this pub have committed a criminal offence, I can't see how they can continue to build and then make a profit from it. That should send a clear message to the likes of Clearview that having money and taking a hit on the fine won't mean you can continue to act in a blase fashion.
I actually thought it was unlawful to profit from criminal activity; if Clearview, by demolishing this pub have committed a criminal offence, I can't see how they can continue to build and then make a profit from it. That should send a clear message to the likes of Clearview that having money and taking a hit on the fine won't mean you can continue to act in a blase fashion. wayneo

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree