QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
KAREN BARTON |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL |
Respondent |
____________________
Miss Isabella Tafur (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the defendant
The interested party did not appear
Hearing dates: 8 March 2017
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HH JUDGE JARMAN QC:
"Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised."
"I do not think it is necessary to give the word "building" in the expression "listed building" its extended meaning in order to make sense of section 7. On the contrary, the wording of section 7 suggests that the extended meaning of "building" has no function here. All one needs to identify, in order to apply its provisions, is the building or part of a building which is for the time being in the list as a listed building-in other words, is the structure a listed building? If it is, its demolition – assuming for the moment that this word means the removal of the entire building – would be bound to affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, because if it were not of that character it would not be in the list. Works of alteration of extension on the other hand may or may not have that effect, hence the qualification which applies to these words for the purposes of section 7."
"I do not think that there is any inconsistency, so long as it is appreciated that a listed building can consist of part of a building. Buildings in conservation areas are put on the same footing as buildings of special architectural or historic interest, or any part of a building which has that character, which is for the time being included in the list. In the context of section 74(1), subject to any exceptions or modifications in this regard which may have been prescribed under subsection (3) of that section, the reference to the demolition of a building in a conservation area must be taken to mean the removal of a whole building…. "
"It follows from what I have said that the advice in that paragraph will require to be reconsidered. Subject to such exceptions or modifications as may have been prescribed by regulations under section 74(3) of the Act of 1990, it will no longer be correct to say that, because of the definition of "building" in the principal Act the demolition of part of a building in a conservation area should be regarded as falling within the scope of conservation area control. In the context of section 74 of the Act of 1990, which requires to be read together with the legislation relating to listed buildings in Part I of that Act, the reference to demolition of a building means the demolition of the whole building. But advice can still be given to the effect that the question what constitutes the demolition of the whole building is a question of fact and degree which will need to be decided on the facts of each case."
"Whether the works are demolition or an alteration is a matter of judgment in this case. However, the common meaning of the word "alteration" is a change or modification or action to make (a structure or thing) different. It seems to me that these both imply the adaption of the existing structure rather than its removal. In contrast the work demolition means the act of pulling down, to lay in ruins or destroy a structure."
"Taking these altogether, and coupled with the absence of any work other than the removal of the pedestrian gate, lintel, and stonework, it appears to me that the building operations fall fairly and squarely into the description "to lay in ruins." Hence as a matter of fact and degree they constitute a act of demolition."
"To support this argument the appellant says that her intentions have been to alter the wall and gates and in evidence of this she submitted a planning application. The proposed development was described in the application form as "To demolish a small section of the wall to obtain access."