Planning permission granted for change of use of listed building subject to conditions – Second permission granted with replacement condition – Applicant seeking permission for retention of part of building without compliance with replacement condition – District council refusing permission – Inspector dismissing applicant’s appeal – Whether initial condition lawful when imposed – Application dismissed
In 1991 planning permission was granted for the change of use of Newton Hall, Cambridgeshire, to be used for research and development by the applicant. Certain conditions were imposed in order to enhance the setting of Newton Hall as a Grade II listed building. One condition was to demolish, within two years of occupation, a section of a nearby barn. In October 1993 a second permission was granted and a new condition was substituted for one contained in the 1991 permission, namely that the demolition of the barn be within four years of occupation. The applicant sought retention of part of the barn without compliance with the condition. This was refused by South Cambridgeshire District Council and the applicant’s appeal was subsequently dismissed in March 1998 by the inspector. The applicant applied pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision. The sole issue was whether the original condition contained in the 1991 permission was itself lawful.
Held The application was dismissed.
It was unusual for a condition that required demolition of a building to relate fairly and properly to a permission for change of use, particularly if the change of use was only temporary: see Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578. Although the change of use in the present case was a permanent one, the correct approach was to determine whether the condition related to the development. If the total change of use was only justified under the development plan in so far as it enabled preservation of the listed building, in keeping with the policy to maintain the appearance of the building, a requirement of work that achieved that objective must be said to have related to the development. Therefore, it had been within the planning authority’s power to conclude that the condition was justified.
Stephen Morgan (instructed by Mills & Reeve, of Cambridge) appeared for the applicant; Timothy Corner (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
