Planning permission — Remains of listed building — Applicant seeking to demolish remains and to build replica — Local authority insisting that remaining walls be retained — Whether reasons to override presumption in favour of preserving listed buildings — Inspector finding no such overriding reasons — Inspector’s decision upheld
The planning authority, Stroud District Council, refused planning permission for the demolition of the remains of a listed farmhouse and the erection of a new building as a replica of the former building at Ferris Court Cottages, Ferris Court, Lypiatt, near Stroud. The building had been occupied as two dwellings, which had been divided only by a locked door on the first floor and the cross passage below and was adjacent to a listed barn and granary. The premises had been included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and were sited on an isolated promontory two miles west of Stroud. The planning authority had stated that their refusal stemmed from the fact that the building formed part of an extremely important group of buildings, which reflected an era of medieval agricultural life. Demolition of any one of them would result in a considerable loss. The applications concerned one issue, namely whether the remaining listed walls should be retained in any replica building or whether they should be demolished. The inspector, who was appointed on appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, stated that there was no reason why consolidation of the existing remains could not be achieved economically relative to the special interest of the result. There was nothing in the planning history or in planning policies which led to any other conclusion. There were insufficient reasons for overriding the normal presumption in favour of retaining listed buildings. The applicant appealed to the High Court that the decision be quashed on the grounds, inter alia, that the inspector had failed to consider or assess the cost of maintaining the building in relation to its importance: see para 90(c) of Circular 8/87.
Held The application was refused.
1. The inspector had considered the question of costs and the economics of rebuilding, which was only one factor at issue. Even if he had not considered that aspect of the appeal, the decision reached would have been the same.
2. The historical interest in the character of a past age as well as the special architectural and historic interest of the buildings in question all pointed to the presumption in favour of preservation.
3. No sufficient reason had been put forward to permit the demolition of the remainder of the wall so as to override that presumption in favour of retaining the listed building structures.
Joseph Harper (instructed by Engletons) appeared for the appellant; John Howell (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Peter Wadsley (instructed by the solicitor to Stroud District Council) appeared for the council.
