Listed building — Enforcement notices — Applicant challenging notices — Validity of notices — Whether applicant having right to question validity of notices — Application refused
The applicant, C, was the owner of the Royal Hotel at Tring, Hertfordshire. In October 1995 he sought leave to apply for judicial review to quash convictions for 15 offences under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; to quash two enforcement notices issued under that Act; and to quash the listing of the Royal Hotel as a building of special architectural or historic interest.
C obtained leave only in respect of the second matter. The notices alleged a contravention of section 9(1) and (2) in relation to the hotel. Section 9(1) made it an offence to contravene section 7, which in turn prohibited a person from executing unauthorised works to a listed building (ie works for which there was no listed building consent under section 8) which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. Section 9(2) made it an offence to fail to comply with any conditions attached to a listed building consent when executing or causing to be executed any works in relation to a listed building under that consent. One of the enforcement notices alleged a failure to comply with the conditions of a consent.
C said that: he was in fact given permission to carry out works; part at least of the hotel was not listed; the reason he sought consent for some of the works was that he was misled into believing that all the hotel was listed; the works did not affect the character of the building; and the remedial steps he had been required to take would not restore the character of the building.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. Section 64 of the 1990 Act provided that the validity of a listed building enforcement notice should not, except by way of appeal under section 39, be questioned.
2. Section 39 of the Act (as amended) provided that a person with an interest in the building to which a listed building enforcement notice related might appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice on specified grounds.
3. If C were right that he was given permission to carry out the works, then the matters alleged to constitute a contravention would not do so, since the works were authorised and did not offend section 7.
4. Further, if C were right that the hotel was not listed in whole or part, then that was either because it was not of special architectural or historic interest or for other reasons advanced by C. Section 9(1) and (2) could not be contravened for both subsections necessarily depended on the building in question being listed.
5. Section 38 (which authorised the issue of enforcement notices) provided that where it appeared to the local planning authority that any works had been executed to a listed building in their area which contravened section 9(1) or (2), they might, if they considered it expedient having regard to the effect of the works on the character of the building as one of special architectural or historic interest, issue an enforcement notice.
6. In the circumstances the council were entitled to issue the notices and section 64 prevented C from seeking relief from the court.
The applicant appeared in person; Paul Brown QC (instructed by the solicitor to Dacorum Borough Council) appeared for the local planning authority; Christopher Katkowski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State.
