Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - contravention of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.

[2013]JRC253

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 December 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Mark Monamy

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  53.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant was a mechanical engineer who had run his own plumbing and heating business but latterly became a property developer.  He purchased a semi-detached residential property in St Saviour on 23^rd November, 2012, and immediately submitted an application to planning to construct a two storey extension.  Before having been granted planning or building permissions, the defendant carried out unauthorised work to which the Bye-Laws applied, including demolition of an external gable wall, stripping out, construction of new timber partitions, renovation and replacement of thermal elements to external walls and replacement of the ground floor by laying a concrete slab.  Planning application was refused on 6^th February, 2013, and the defendant was told to stop work, which he did.  Retrospective consent was later granted in April 2013, the defendant having made required modifications. 

Details of Mitigation:

Co-operated with investigation; admitted offence at earliest opportunity; good character; "mortified" to find himself in Court. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Contribution towards the Prosecution's costs £1,500.

Total: £6,500 to be paid within two weeks or 6 months' imprisonment in default.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

The Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant, who is a mechanical engineer and has been involved in the building industry for some 35 years as a plumbing and heating engineer, has pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 in effect for carrying out building works to a property he had purchased without building permission. 

2.        According to the Prosecution the defendant took the view that he did not need a building permit for those works, a view which they find difficult to accept, bearing in mind:-

(i)        his experience in the industry;

(ii)       his having been warned previously in similar circumstances in relation to another property, something which the defendant says he cannot now recollect; and

(iii)      that he was advised by his own engineer that the work in which he had prepared the drawings required the involvement of building control. 

3.        In terms of mitigation the defendant, who is representing himself today, says he did not realise that he needed permission to carry out these works pending his application to the Planning Department but he has admitted the infractions at the earliest opportunity, a retrospective consent has now been issued so there are no continuing offences and he is a person of good character.  He told us he was "mortified" to be appearing before us.  Once he was told by the Planning Department to stop works he had done so, and he assured us that he will never appear in this Court again. 

4.        We cannot, of course, condone the notion that obligations under the Planning and Building Laws and Bye-Laws can be ignored.  One of the consequences, pointed out by the Prosecution, of such conduct is that the Planning Department are denied the opportunity of checking the quality of the work thus removing an important safeguard for future occupiers of the property.  This is important legislation and at the end of the day there is no excuse for the defendant for not having complied with it by either taking advice or indeed making direct enquiries of the Planning Department. 

5.        We therefore accept the Crown's conclusions and on Count 1 we impose a fine of £2,500, on Count 2; a fine of £2,500 making a total fine of £5,000.  We also order a default sentence of 3 months' imprisonment on each count should payment not be made.  And we order you to make a contribution to the costs of the prosecution of £1,500 and we give you 2 weeks in which to pay. 

Authorities

Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.

Building Bye-Laws (Jersey) 2007.

AG-v-Gindill [2003] JRC 056.

AG-v-Keenan [2011] JRC 143.