Applicant seeking to demolish building – Respondent council refusing conservation area consent for proposal – Inspector dismissing appeal – Whether lawful decision – Application dismissed
The applicant applied to the second respondent council for conservation area consent for the demolition of a building at a site within the north Lowestoft conservation area, in order to retain the site as open land for vehicular access and car parking. Consent was refused. On appeal, the inspector identified the main issue as being the effect of the proposed demolition on the conservation area and, in particular, whether its character and appearance would be preserved. The inspector concluded that the building was of “historical interest” and was a “remarkable and rare survival of a local building type”, which made a significant “contribution to the character and appearance of the area”. The inspector went on to conclude that the demolition was not in accordance with PPG 15 and would harm the conservation area. While acknowledging that there were problems with access and parking, the inspector concluded that it was not essential to demolish the building, and dismissed the appeal.
The applicant sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 on five grounds, inter alia, that the inspector had: (1) taken immaterial considerations into account, notably the pressure that allowing the appeal would have on the planning authority; (2) failed to consider material considerations, namely that present access for large vehicles was dangerous and parking within the site was substandard; and (3) misunderstood the correct legal principle applicable to partial demolition as set out in Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council [1997] 1 All ER 481.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The inspector had selected a clear determining issue and given clear reasons why he determined against the applicant. The inspector was plainly of the view that the building contributed to the character and appearance of the area. The inspector did not take into account an immaterial consideration by considering the issue of precedent: see Poundstretcher Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] 3 PLR 69 applied.
The inspector did have regard to material considerations, namely the problems of access and parking. The weight to be attached to those matters was for his planning judgment. It was beyond dispute that the question as to what constituted a building was a matter of fact and degree for the inspector. Having addressed the argument as to whether the proposal was for partial demolition, the inspector concluded it was demolition of the building as a whole. Therefore, conservation consent was required and Shimizu (supra) did not fall to be considered.
Nicholas Elcombe (instructed by Howard Killin & Bruce, of Great Yarmouth) appeared for the applicant; Rabinder Singh (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, Waveney District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
