|
GREED
IS DESTROYING OUR HERITAGE -
Heritage views are fast disappearing from villages as councils scramble to give developers free reign in return
for more rates to bolster their coffers, despite the fact that we are in
the middle of a climate emergency. Such councils and the developers
taking advantage of them are nothing short of climate criminals in the
view of country lovers and history buffs. Charles Church Developments
Limited shares the same registered office as Persimmon plc. Potentially
raising questions as to water pollution, stemming from their conviction
in Wales around 2021, when they were fined something like £433,000
in Newport Magistrates.
CHARLES
CHURCH LTD. DIRECTORS & COMPANY SECRETARY
DAVISON, Tracy Lazelle
Correspondence address: Persimmon House, Fulford, York, YO19 4FE
Role Active - Secretary
Appointed on - 20 July 2001
Nationality - British
FINCH, Dean Kendal
Correspondence address: Persimmon House, Fulford, York, England, YO19 4FE
Role Active - Director
Date of birth - July 1966
Appointed on - 1 December 2020
Nationality - British
Country of residence - England
Identity verification due - 19 November 2026
NICHOLS, Julia
Correspondence address: Persimmon House, Fulford, York, England, YO19 4FE
Role Active - Director
Date of birth - December 1974
Appointed on - 30 September 2021
Nationality - British
Country of residence - England
Identity verification due - 19 November 2026
SMITH, Michael John
Correspondence address: Persimmon House, Fulford, York, Yorkshire, United
Kingdom, YO19 4FE
Role Active - Director
Date of birth - January 1975
Appointed on - 14 January 2022
Nationality - British
Country of residence - England
Identity verification due - 19 November 2026
Companies House in the United Kingdom, is required to list the details of
the officers of a company, the details of which is open to public
inspection. This includes share dealings, registered office and accounts.
The directors are also required to state who is the controlling mind of the
company and provide information of their registered address.
SERIOUSNESS,
COMPLEXITY & PUBLIC INTEREST
Seriousness of the Offence High: MiPO is an indictable-only offence with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, reserved for "serious wilful abuse or neglect." The risk of contaminating a human
water supply and destroying a world-unique heritage asset meets this high threshold.
Complexity of the Case High: The case involves a multi-year "conspiracy," abuse of planning laws, environmental risk, and commercial fraud. The CPS often prefers to prosecute complex schemes together.
Public Interest Strong: The case involves: (1) Abuse of public trust by local government officials; (2) Environmental crime (water pollution, risk to protected species); (3) Protection of heritage assets (1896 generating station); and (4) Consumer fraud (selling defective properties). These factors create a compelling public interest case.
Alternative Offences: The search results suggest MiPO should be used only where no adequate statutory offence exists. In this case, while Fraud Act charges can cover the financial dishonesty, MiPO uniquely captures the abuse of the public's trust by the Council officials, which the Fraud Act cannot. Therefore, both charges are necessary to reflect the full extent of the criminality.
AI'S
VIEWS ON MORALS AND BUSINESS ETHICS
Surely any reputable builder with shareholders, and a good community spirit would not want to devalue or put at risk, a potential national monument, or one that has been on a Monument Protection
Programme, citing the potential for scheduling? Let alone put themselves or any customers at risk as to poisoning an ancient
well in the Wealden Council
District?
This is where the argument shifts from legal liability (the minimum standard) to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and ethical risk management (the higher standard expected of a reputable firm).
A builder's decision to proceed with a tainted consent and conceal critical risks carries massive ethical and commercial dangers that far outweigh the short-term profits.
Here is an AI argument, framed for a reputable construction firm and its shareholders, explaining why they should steer clear of harming the
Herstmonceux heritage asset:
THE ETHICAL AND COMMERCIAL CASE AGAINST HARMING THE HERITAGE ASSET
For any builder concerned with long-term viability, reputation, and shareholder confidence, proceeding with this development, given the known facts, constitutes a failure of corporate governance and a severe reputational
hazard, allegedly.
1. Ethical Failures: Beyond Legal Compliance
Reputable builders operate above the minimum legal threshold, embracing the principles of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
Duty to Community and Environment (Goes Beyond NPPF): While the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets the legal requirements for heritage and environmental consideration, CSR principles demand that a company proactively minimises negative impact on the local community and environment.
The World-Unique Asset: Willfully ignoring a unique, 1896 electricity generating station an asset that has been flagged for Monument Protection is a profound ethical failure. It shows a disregard for cultural legacy and the very essence of the built environment they claim to contribute to. As the search results note, heritage protection is "not only a legal obligation but also a moral responsibility."
The Ancient Well (Human Safety): The ethical failure is most severe concerning the well. Knowing that construction risks poisoning the sole water supply of the neighbouring
Museum and failing to conduct hydrological tests is a reckless act that jeopardises human safety and property rights. No ethical company would knowingly proceed with an operation that risks rendering a neighbour's water source unusable.
2. Commercial and Financial Risk: The Cost of Reputational Damage
The short-term gain from selling the 70 houses is dwarfed by the potential long-term financial fallout.
A. Public Relations and Brand Erosion
The "Unethical Builder" Label: Being associated with a development secured by local authority "malfeasance," a fraudulent non-disclosure to buyers, the destruction of
Great Crested Newt habitat, and the potential poisoning of a community water source will quickly brand the firm as unethical and irresponsible.
Shareholder/Investor Scrutiny (ESG): Large institutional investors increasingly apply Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria. Funds will divest from companies exposed to high regulatory and reputational risk, particularly those associated with:
- Serious environmental crimes (like the prior £433,000 fine for water pollution).
- Abuse of public planning processes (collusion/conspiracy).
- Consumer fraud (selling houses that are a legal liability).
Future Planning Permission: Local Planning Authorities across the country will be far more likely to reject future applications from a company with a documented history of ignoring environmental and heritage concerns, as such behaviour is seen to undermine the integrity of the entire planning process.
B. The Legal Time Bomb and Cost of Recourse
The legal risks the objecting Herstmonceux residents identified are not theoretical; they translate directly into crippling financial costs:
- Cost of Criminal Defence and Fines: The high-stakes risk of Conspiracy to Defraud and Fraud Act charges (carrying prison sentences and unlimited fines) is a financial catastrophe waiting to happen.
- Civil Lawsuits: The firm faces two main civil threats:
1. Purchaser Lawsuits (Misrepresentation): Claims for rescission (unwinding the sale) and damages from buyers who discover they purchased a property with inherent, undisclosed liabilities.
2. Museum Lawsuits (Nuisance/Easement): Costs associated with defending a claim for interference with the prescriptive easement (the well) and potential court-ordered work to remediate the water supply. Planning permission is no defence to a private nuisance claim.
Enforcement Costs: If the Environment Agency or the Council (under pressure) eventually acts, the firm will be liable for the costs of remediation and potentially the loss of the development's value.
Risk Category Ethical Failure Commercial Consequence
- Environmental Reckless endangerment of an aquifer and protected species. Multi-million pound liability for environmental clean-up and a possible criminal fine.
- Heritage Willful destruction of a world-unique, unprotected heritage asset. Permanent brand damage; rejection of future projects by LPAs and investors.
- Consumer Fraudulent non-disclosure of known risks to buyers. Civil lawsuits for rescission (unwinding sales) and damages; Trading Standards action.
- Governance Association with Council malfeasance/conspiracy. Loss of shareholder confidence and potential investor divestment (ESG risk).
The AI's conclusion is that a genuinely reputable builder would see the tainted consent as a poisoned chalice. The ethical course of action is to halt construction, disclose all known facts, and seek a legal and environmental resolution that protects the heritage assets and the water supply, thereby mitigating future liability and preserving their corporate reputation.
LINKS
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01182689
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DoNotBuyPersimmon/posts/6845710715512908/
AGRICULTURE - The
bedrock foundation of any nation, is their farmers and fishermen,
providing locally grown food for a sustainable, healthy lifestyle.
Return
HOME
|