▁Heritage ▁Council ▁subsequently ▁sought ▁to ▁have ▁these ▁alter ations ▁removed ▁and ▁charged ▁the ▁architect s ▁Richard ▁Mann ▁and ▁Associ ates ▁and ▁les se es ▁James ▁Richard son ▁P ty ▁Ltd ▁with ▁off ences ▁under ▁Section ▁ 5 7 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Heritage ▁Act ▁ 1 9 7 7 . ▁Following ▁the ▁exp iration ▁of ▁the ▁I CO ▁No . ▁ 3 9 1 ▁in ▁May ▁ 1 9 8 7 ▁a ▁new ▁I CO ▁( No . ▁ 7 3 7 ) ▁was ▁gaz ett ed . ▁In ▁April ▁ 1 9 8 8 ▁a ▁further ▁I CO ▁( No . ▁ 8 4 5 ) ▁was ▁gaz ett ed ▁and ▁notice ▁given ▁of ▁a ▁proposal ▁to ▁make ▁a ▁P erman ent ▁Conserv ation ▁Order ▁( P CO ) ▁for ▁the ▁building . ▁ ▁This ▁was ▁the ▁first ▁time ▁a ▁modern ▁era ▁prem ises ▁was ▁subject ▁to ▁a ▁P erman ent ▁Conserv ation ▁Order . ▁James ▁Richard son ▁P ty ▁Ltd ▁who ▁continued ▁as ▁the ▁les see ▁at ▁the ▁time ▁object ed ▁to ▁the ▁making ▁of ▁the ▁P CO ▁under ▁Section ▁ 4 1 ▁of ▁the ▁Heritage ▁Act ▁of ▁ 1 9 7 7 ▁in ▁that ▁it ▁would ▁render ▁the ▁prem ises ▁in cap able ▁of ▁" reason able ▁or ▁economic ▁use ". ▁ ▁This ▁issue ▁was ▁addressed ▁at ▁the ▁subsequent ▁Commission ▁En qu iry . ▁ ▁The ▁extent ▁of ▁the ▁una ut hor ised ▁building ▁work ▁was ▁described ▁as : ▁ ▁a ▁pl aster board ▁on ▁a ▁metal ▁frame ▁partition