“The Battle for Heritage: Ire of the Old Farmer After Demolishing a Fence to Suit Himself”
**Elderly Farmer Threatened with Jail and Fine for “Historic” Wall He Built 50 Years Ago**
An elderly farmer, Ron Knight, 89, has been issued a series of threats from the city council after he refused to pay a fine for a “historic” wall he built more than 50 years ago. The wall was constructed by Knight himself in 1973, and he has since been locked in a six-year battle with the council over its removal.
According to reports, the council claims that the wall is of “historic significance” and is located in a “conservation area”, requiring planning permission. However, Knight disputes this, insisting that the wall has been part of his property for decades and that he has always owned the land on which it stands.
In an interview with a local publication, Knight explained his predicament, saying, “I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been to court. Last time, the judge asked me how I could pay and I told them I couldn’t. They asked me if I wanted to take £5 a month out of my pension. I said ‘yes’ and that’s when it all started. Then I got a letter saying they could no longer deduct from my pension and sent me a card to take to the post office. I wouldn’t do that. The agreement with the judge was that they could deduct it from my pension. That’s what happened.”
Knight has also received letters threatening enforcement action, stating that bailiffs may search his home and remove items to recoup losses. His wife, Jean, 81, has been left filled with anxiety, saying, “My husband is 90 years old. But it affects me more – he just isn’t going to pay.”
Furthermore, the council has applied a “convenience test” and a “public interest test” at every stage of the case, claiming that the construction of an access road, which would require the removal of a large area of the historic stone wall and associated works, would fail to protect the established character of the reserve and cause unreasonable harm to the reserve’s designated heritage assets.
Despite his pleas, Knight insists that his home is at stake, stating, “My point is, if the wall was ours in 1973, it is ours now. Why are they making such a fuss? All we did was tear down a section as access to our property’s entrance, we have no other way to enter. I don’t pay – if it belongs to me, why should I? I don’t care what they say or do.”
**FAQs**
Q: Why is the wall considered “historic”?
A: The council claims that the wall is of “historic significance” and is located in a “conservation area”, requiring planning permission.
Q: What is the dispute about?
A: The dispute is over the removal of a part of the wall, which Knight claims was done to improve access to his property. The council claims that this has caused “unreasonable harm” to local listed buildings.
Q: Has Ron Knight always owned the land on which the wall stands?
A: Yes, according to Knight himself.
**Conclusion**
The case highlights the complexities of planning regulations and the importance of property rights. While the council asserts that the wall is a historic relic, Knight insists that it is a part of his property and that its removal would ruin his access to his land. As the case continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether justice will be served or if the elderly farmer will be forced to pay the price for a wall built more than 50 years ago.
