Conservation area — Freehold owner of listed building — Bankruptcy — Disclaimer by trustee — Property vested in Crown — Property derelict — Council responsible for renovation — Crown consent needed before work started — Commissioners refusing to act — Vesting order sought by council — Registrar refusing order — Registrar holding that council having no interest in property — High Court allowing appeal on ground that council had sufficient interest
The council applied for 185 Stoke Newington Church Street, London N16, to be vested in the council absolutely and for the Crown and National Westminster Bank (the bank) to be excluded from any interest in the property. The previous owner of the freehold was R, who gave the bank a mortgage over the property. He was declared bankrupt and the trustees in bankruptcy disclaimed the property in June 1993. The property was then vested in the Crown. The property was a Georgian building in a conservation area, for which the council were responsible. It was statutorily listed as a building of special architectural interest and was derelict. It was included by English Heritage as a listed building at risk.
Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the council were responsible for the enforcement of the Act in relation to listed buildings and with the prevention of the deterioration of or damage to such buildings. Under section 83 of the 1990 Act, the council’s power to execute necessary works and recover the cost under sections 54 and 55 might only be exercised in relation to Crown land (which this property was) to the extent of any interest in it for the time being held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown. No interest in Crown land might be compulsorily acquired under section 47 without the consent of the commissioners. The only other interest here was that of the bank under its charge. It had not gone into possession. The result was that section 83 prevented the exercise by the council of any of their powers. The registrar refused to make the vesting order sought, but the council appealed. Neither the commissioners nor the bank took any part in the proceedings.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. Under section 320 of the Insolvency Act 1986 the council had to show that they had an interest in the disclaimed property (section 320(2)(a)) and were entitled to obtain the disclaimed property under a vesting order (section 320(3)(a)). In effect that involved the court being satisfied that there was no compelling interest with priority to the claimant’s interest.
2. The council had an interest in the property having had cause to register charges under the local Land Charges Registry in respect of works carried out pursuant to dangerous structures notices under the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.
3. In the result there were the following interests in the premises, which resulted in the following order: (a) the council’s rights under the 1939 and 1949 Acts in the sum of £14,781.36; (b) the bank’s charge in the sum of £133,000; and (c) the freehold vested in the Crown Estate Commissioners. The property was worth £10,000. In the light of the totally passive attitude adopted by the latter two and the unchallenged evidence as to the value of the property it was fit to make a vesting order in favour of the council freed and discharged from all interests of the Crown and the bank.
Becket Bedford (instructed by the solicitor to Hackney London Borough Council) appeared for the appellant council; the respondents did not appear and were not represented.
