The expression “listed building” is defined in section 1(5) of the Planning (
In Barratt v Ashford Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 27; [2011] PLSCS 24; the appellants contended that their house was not a listed building at the time the local planning authority (LPA) applied for an interim injunction to stop unauthorised works to the house because at that time no building of the name and address of their house appeared in the list.
The list referred to a house located in the same spot as the appellants’ house indicated by a numbered arrow and an Ordinance Survey reference on a separate plan that was referred to in the listing. However, the name of the listed property was different from that of the appellants’ house and the designated name of the road also differed from that on which the house was situated. Their principal argument was that the name in the list took precedence over all other listed details. In support, they pointed to the significant legal consequences that flow from listing.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, and dismissed their appeal. Mummery LJ stated that the question of which buildings are listed is one of interpretation, and so a question of law. The Act did not preclude the court from reading the entirety of the entry. Furthermore, the ordinary and natural meaning of a document is usually determined by the court reading it as a whole in the setting of its relevant surrounding circumstances. What the legislation required was the compilation of an official list of buildings, not an official list of names. The entry must accordingly be read and interpreted by reference to all its interconnected parts. The numbered arrow pinpointed the exact location of the appellants’ house. It did not refer to any other building in the vicinity.
This places an even heavier burden on housebuyers, and those responsible for preparing the results of local authority searches.
John Martin is a freelance writer
