Listed building — Enforcement notice — Inspector dismissing claimant’s appeal against enforcement notice relating to alterations to listed building — Whether inspector failing to take account of state of building prior to alterations — Whether inspector failing to give adequate reasons for decision — Claim allowed
The claimant acquired a listed building in London W14. He made a number of alterations to the property, in respect of which he applied for retrospective listed building consent. The second defendant council laid an information against the claimant, which the magistrates later dismissed. They also issued an enforcement notice, alleging that certain of the works affected the character of the property as a building of special architectural or historic interest, contrary to section 9(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The notice complained, in particular, of the replacement of skirting boards and the removal of wainscoting.
The claimant appealed to the first defendant Secretary of State against both the notice and the non-determination of his application for consent. At the inquiry, he presented evidence that the original skirting and wainscoting had been in poor condition prior to his works. The inspector dismissed both appeals. On the first appeal, he considered that the claimant had provided no proof as to the state of the property before the works, and found that its condition was likely to have been the same as at the time of listing in 1970. He took the view that the magistrates’ decision was irrelevant to his own, since the matters addressed, and conclusions reached, were not directly related to the appeal issues. On the second appeal, he found that the works for which consent was sought had not been sufficiently detailed in the application.
The claimant challenged the inspector’s decision on the grounds that, inter alia, he had: (i) erred in treating the magistrates’ decision as irrelevant; (ii) failed to give adequate reasons for the conclusions that he had reached on the evidence; and (iii) failed, when considering the appeal on the consent application, to deal with a council report that indicated that certain items did not have a significant adverse effect upon the character of the building.
Held: The claim was allowed.
1. The inspector had been entitled to regard the fact of the claimant’s acquittal before the magistrates as being irrelevant because the role of the criminal courts was different from the claimant’s role on appeal.
2. The state of the property prior to the works was relevant in judging the significance and acceptability of any alterations, and the inspector, in his decision, had erred in failing to deal with the previous condition of the skirting and wainscoting. His approach, which presumed that the condition of the items before the works was the same as that at the time of listing, ignored other evidence. Had he considered that evidence, his decision might have been different, and it would accordingly be quashed on that ground.
3. The inspector had failed sufficiently to deal with the council’s report in his decision. The claimant was thereby prejudiced in not knowing whether the report had been ignored, and because, in a further application for consent, neither he nor the council would know whether the latter’s views on items that it thought insignificantly adverse had been overlooked or rejected.
The claimant appeared in person; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sally Dobson, barrister
