Listed building — Application for demolition — Refusal of consent — Compensation — Whether application was to alter listed building by demolition or demolition and replacement — Lands Tribunal holding application was for works of alteration and compensation available — Appeal allowed (by a majority)
A building formerly known as Quantas House on the corner of Bond Street and Piccadilly, London W1, was a listed building. In 1988 the owners obtained listed building consent and planning permission for the demolition of all except the facades, chimney breasts and chimney stacks and for redevelopment of the site as a retail arcade and offices. In June 1990, when the greater part of the internal structure had been demolished, a further application was made for listed building consent for the removal of internal chimney breasts and the provision of support to the chimney stacks. The application was considered by the Secretary of State and consent was refused.
The applicants appealed to the compensating authority for compensation under section 27 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (now repealed). The authority denied that compensation was payable. The Lands Tribunal concluded that the works were alterations to the building and compensation was payable: see [1994] 1 EGLR 214. The compensating authority appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed by a majority.
1. The proper construction of section 27 depended upon the preceding sections. In section 7 a distinction was drawn between works for the demolition of a listed building, which included any part thereof, on the one hand, and works for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, on the other. Works in either category were prohibited unless authorised. By section 8(2) works for the demolition of the listed building, or part of it were authorised if, in addition to the requirement of written consent and compliance with the terms of it, notice of the proposal to execute the works had been given to the Royal Commission. Work for demolition of part of a listed building was thus treated as distinct from works for alteration and not as something capable of being included in and treated as part of the works of alteration.
2. When section 27(1)(a) referred to “an application for … consent for the alteration … of a listed building” the words in their context did not include an application for consent for works which consisted of or included demolition of part of the building.
3. The tribunal erred in law in its reasoning and conclusion. The application of June 1990 was in form and substance an application for listed building consent for the demolition of chimney breasts. If consent had been given in respect of them the claimant would have been required to comply with section 8(2). On refusal it remained an application for consent for demolition of the chimney breasts.
4. Per Russell LJ dissenting: the tribunal was entitled to regard the development as being an alteration of part of the building, confined to the interior in both the vertical and horizontal planes. It was not necessary for the tribunal to consider the work in the context of an alteration to the whole building. The tribunal’s decision should not be disturbed.
Nigel Macleod QC (instructed by the solicitor to Westminster City Council) appeared for the council; David Holgate (instructed by Freshfields) appeared for Shimizu.
