News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Hove couple fined again for eyesore extension


A couple who repeatedly refused to pull down an illegal extension have been hit with another heavy fine.

Ignacy Lechowicz, 73, and his wife, Krystana, 56, are in a long-running dispute with Brighton and Hove City Council over the work.

The council has repeatedly taken the couple to court to try to get them to demolish the “eyesore” extension at their bungalow in Goldstone Way, Hove.

But so far they have refused to demolish the work, which they started in 2005, despite countless court appearances and Mrs Lechowicz spending time in jail.

At the latest court hearing the couple were both fined £7,500 by Brighton magistrates and both ordered to pay £1,450 costs for failing to comply with an enforcement notice ordering them to remove the work in 2007.

They denied failing to comply with the notice but did not appear in court for their trial and the case was proved in their absence.

Len Batten, prosecuting for the council, said: "Planning applications have been submitted and refused and on appeal the refusal has been upheld. This has not resulted in the unauthorised structure being removed."

Council officer Evelyn Baxter described the extension as an "eyesore" and told the court it appeared that brick patterned wallpaper had been used on outside walls as well as bathroom tiles on outside pillars.

The Polish couple, who have a teenage daughter, claim they needed to install the balcony and car port as it improved disabled access to their detached home. The works were also meant to be the base of a conservatory, which was never completed.

They were prosecuted twice for failing to provide the council with information about who owned the property and in 2008 Mrs Lechowicz, who receives incapacity benefit, served 65 days in prison in lieu of paying more than £5,000 in fines and costs.

Later that year they were together fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 for failing to comply with the notice.

The court was told the couple have finally been granted planning permission in January after submitting plans for a new fully-glazed porch and new steps to give disability access, which meets building regulations, but so far no work has started.

The council will now consider what action to take to ensure the couple comply with the order. The local authority could carry out the demolition work themselves and then place a charge on the property to recover the costs.

Comments(8)

East Brunswick says...
3:15pm Tue 9 Mar 10

Pull it down and make them pay. Or send them both to jail till it is removed.

davyboy says...
5:48pm Tue 9 Mar 10

East Brunswick wrote:
Pull it down and make them pay. Or send them both to jail till it is removed.
good idea, but it would involve lengthy legal proceedings, to allow someone to enter their property and remove it. why do people behave like this? why can't they follow correct planning guidelines? if you or i did this, it would be down within a month, but maybe they have played the ' i don't understand english very well' card! i agree that it should be removed and these people charged.

monty sidewinder says...
7:27pm Tue 9 Mar 10

''Council officer Evelyn Baxter described the extension as an "eyesore" and told the court it appeared that brick patterned wallpaper had been used on outside walls as well as bathroom tiles on outside pillars. ''

i would love to see a photo of this!! ..any chance Argus?

John Steed says...
8:46pm Tue 9 Mar 10

council staff appear to be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut,
the mere fact this matter has gone to court and resulted in ridiculously large fines for a disabled couple and jail time for fasilure to pay indicates something is well amiss, can the argus accertain if all resonable avenues have been explorered here, as to an eyesore thats commonly a stye so what does this unauthorised structure look like and are those who actually have to look at it (neighbours )complaining it has to be said that some people cam be bloody minded and more so when miffed off, come on council try a bit harder to get the point across by face to face discussion most people will react favourably to a sympathetic ear, it might ne intresting to know who constructed this structure

puddingandpi says...
9:58pm Tue 9 Mar 10

Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone just built what they wanted, where they wanted & how they wanted?

It would be a bloody mess. The council should just pull it down & re-charge the cost.

TheInsider says...
7:11am Wed 10 Mar 10

There was a photo in The Argus. If you have ever driven across the rural areas of Eastern Europe and seen the ramshackle buildings with bits added here and there constructed from materials from skips and left over DIY projects, you will get the idea.
It looks like the sort of structure that would leak all over the place and perhaps not meet building regs or be too safe.
There is something wrong with this couple because it would not have cost them too much to have a basic extension put up by builders of the size they have built and in addition to this, they say claim they need the extension for their disabled daughter, yet one goes to prison and is away from her disabled daughter.

Christophe Hawtree says...
9:14am Wed 10 Mar 10

Perhaps this case will set a precedent for the demolition of the Ramada and much of the east side of Queen's Road? Not to mention the "Glass Pavilion" opposite the real Pavilion?

TheInsider says...
9:43pm Wed 10 Mar 10

Agree with your comments about the Glass Pavilion. How did that ever get built when it looks nothing like the structure promised.....describ
ed as being similar to the Victorian glass houses of Kew when in fact it looks like a partially constructed Boots store.


Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses