Conservation area — Listed building within area — Permission sought for building’s demolition and replacement — Building in poor condition — Refusal of demolition consent and planning permission — Inspector considering planning authority’s refusal through written representations — Consideration of decision letter in light of criteria for written representations — Whether letter fulfilling criteria — Application by developers to quash inspector’s decision refused
Southwark London Borough Council refused listed building consent and full planning permission for the demolition of the existing listed building and redevelopment of the site for new offices at 52A Borough High Street, London SE1. The inspector considered the appeal from the council’s decision through written representations from all parties. He visited the site and decided that the existing listed building should be preserved. The development scheme was within Borough High Street conservation area, so that his concern was to ensure that special attention was paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The older buildings were small in scale in the vicinity of the site and would be overwhelmed by a four-storey office block, the decision letter stated. The inspector concluded that the project would cause positive harm and was contrary to the objective of policies at both national and local level, which sought to preserve the architectural heritage. He dismissed the appeal. In the notice of motion that the decision be quashed, the developers argued that the inspector had failed to take into account the policy for consent for demolition of listed buildings having regard to the cost of repair and maintenance of such a building in relation to its importance. In the instant case, the building was in very poor condition and suffered from neglect. It would slowly crumble if restoration were not viable and so would detract from, and have a negative effect on, the conservation area, they maintained. The building, although neglected, had been added to the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest in the last year.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Where an application was dealt with on written submissions, it was often possible for an inspector to give a much shorter decision than would be practicable when there had been an inquiry and oral evidence. It was essential that although a decision letter was brief, it had to make clear conclusions, principal arguments and reasons for the conclusions: see Grenfell-Baines v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] JPL 256; and also Times Investment Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1990] 3 PLR 111. On the other hand, the applicant had to file material evidence and not mere comment as to cost and value.
2. In the instant case, the inspector had correctly identified the main issues and had considered those issues and his decision letter, although brief, had made clear his conclusions and the reasons for them.
3. With regard to the Secretary of State’s policy for the control of demolition of listed buildings (contained in paras 89 and 90 (c) of Circular 8 of 1987), the inspector properly considered and applied the relevant aspects at issue. The inspector was right in the circumstances to find the replacement unacceptable: see Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] AC 661.
John Howell (instructed by Norton Rose) appeared for the applicant; and Timothy Corner (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; and the second respondents, Southwark London Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
