Material change of use — County Hall — Planning permission granted for overriding scheme by Secretary of State — Amendments sought to relatively small part of scheme — Inquiry held on amendments — Planning permission granted together with conservation area consent and listed building consent — Local authority seeking to quash decision — Secretary of State’s decision upheld
Subsequent to the approval by the House of Lords of planning consent granted to the London Residuary Body for the development of County Hall, London (see [1991] 3 PLR 1), eight further applications were made to Lambeth London Borough Council by the LRB for planning permission, together with conservation area consent and listed building consent under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. When the planning authority failed to determine the applications within the prescribed period, the LRB applied to the Secretary of State for the Environment. An inquiry was held and the inspector concluded that, but for certain objections, the proposals were acceptable in planning terms. As the overriding objections related to a relatively small part of the scheme, the Secretary of State gave an opportunity to amend the applications, whereupon another inquiry was held to consider the amendments, which were duly allowed by the Secretary of State in a decision letter of September 5 1991. The planning authority sought to quash the Secretary of State’s decision under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Held The application to quash was refused.
1. Listed building consent was necessary for the demolition of North, South, and Island Blocks which, although not themselves listed, were within the Riverside Building’s curtilage. The inspector was right in law and the court could not substitute its view of the facts where there was no objection in principle to the demolition, in a scheme of redevelopment which respected the setting of the Riverside Building and enhanced the conservation area: see Debenhams plc v Westminster City Council [1987] AC 396; Watts v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 1 PLR 61; and Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 WLR 1320.
2. The Secretary of State had paid special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting, and while the inspector had stated that the most appropriate use for the Riverside Building was to maintain it for local government use, there was no such probability that it would be put to local government use if planning consent were to be refused. The building therefore had to be put to an alternative use which would respect its architectural and historic features. The Secretary of State had no duty to enquire further than this.
3. With regard to the proposals as to Jubilee Gardens, they were acceptable as to policy. However, the gardens should not to be used so as to be a nuisance to occupiers of the blocks.
4. While the planning authority had argued that there was a need to protect against any risk to the scheme in the light of the depressed property market so that a contingency fund should be set up, it would not be right for the inspector to make consent conditional on such a fund. The Secretary of State was entitled to come to his conclusion that section 77 of the Local Government Act 1985 contained no power which would enable him to set up a contingency fund for the protection of the Riverside Building. Moreover, the Secretary of State had rightly concluded that there was no other provision in the 1985 Act which would enable the creation of such a fund.
Viscount Colville of Culross QC and John Hobson (instructed by the solicitor to Lambeth London Borough Council) appeared for the applicants; Nigel MacLeod QC and Alison Foster (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Robin Purchas QC and Keith Lindblom (instructed by Norton Rose) appeared for the London Residuary Body.
