New structures added to listed building – Appellant in arrears of rates on premises – Respondents seeking liability orders – Magistrate finding new structures not ancillary to listed building and therefore not exempt from payment of rates – Appellant appealing magistrate’s decision – Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 1(5) – Appeal dismissed
In August 1997 the respondents preferred a complaint against the appellant, in that the appellant was in arrears with the payment of non-domestic rates on premises known as St Chads Court, Birmingham, which originally consisted of a central core and two wings. In 1982 the central core of the building was listed under section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (now re-enacted in section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). The two wings were not listed, and, in 1994, they were demolished and new structures were built in their place.
At the hearing, the appellant submitted that the whole building was “listed” for the purposes of the 1990 Act and that the exemption from the unoccupied rate charge provided for in Regulation 2(2)(d) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1989 thus applied. The appellant further submitted that the complex was constructed to function as a single building and that each part was dependent upon the other. It was also submitted, and reiterated in the present appeal, that as the new wings post-dated the listing of the original building, they were automatically listed, irrespective of the provisions of section 1(5)(a) of the 1990 Act. The respondents submitted that only the central part of the building was listed, and, as a result, no part of it was exempt. The magistrate held that the present case was an example of a “modern development dominating the existing listed building” and was not an ancillary structure within section 1(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the exemption did not apply, and the liability orders sought by the respondents were granted. The appellant appealed the magistrate’s decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The words “any object or structure fixed to the building” in section 1(5)(a) were unqualified as to date, as opposed to section 1(5)(b) of the 1990 Act. Section 1(5)(a) had to be given the same meaning whether an extension had been added before or after the building had been listed. The magistrate had correctly applied the test in Debenhams plc v Westminster City Council [1987] 1 EGLR 248, namely, that only ancillary structures were included as part of a listed building.
David Park (instructed by Linklaters & Alliance) appeared for the appellant; James Findlay (instructed by the solicitor to Birmingham City Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
