Council issuing listed building enforcement notice against respondent – Secretary of State adopting inspector’s advice and dismissing respondent’s appeal against notice – Respondent appealing – Deputy judge finding inspector overlooking principle that curtilage of listed building confined to small area around building – Respondent’s appeal allowed – Secretary of State appealing – Whether deputy judge erred – Appeal allowed
A listed building enforcement notice was issued against the respondent (Skerritts) by Harrow London Borough Council in respect of “The stable block lying within the curtilage of the Grade II listed Grimsdyke Hotel”. The contravention alleged was the removal of the existing timber-framed windows and the installation of white plastic double-glazed windows without the benefit of listed building consent. Skerritts appealed to the Secretary of State, inter alia, on the ground that the stable block fell outside the curtilage of the hotel. The Secretary of State adopted the inspector’s appraisal and dismissed the appeal.
Skerritts challenged that decision under section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contending that the inspector had erred in his approach to curtilage. It was submitted that the Secretary of State had erred in accepting the inspector’s advice, which overlooked the principle that the curtilage of a listed building was confined to a small area around the building, and that PPG 15 was incomplete in failing to mention that principle. Basing his decision upon Dyer v Dorset County Council [1989] 1 QB 346, the deputy judge held, inter alia, that it would “amount to an error of law to determine whether a structure separated by some distance from the listed building is within the curtilage of the building without having regard to the concept of curtilage as a small area about a building” and allowed Skerritts’ appeal: [1999] 2 PLR 109; [1999] PLSCS 76.
The Secretary of State appealed against the decision, drawing attention to two authorities that were not cited or considered in Dyer (supra), namely AG (on the relation of Sutcliffe) v Calderdale Borough Council (1982) 46 P&CR 399 and Debenhams v Westminster City Council [1987] AC 396.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
Although the decision in Dyer was correct, the court went further than was necessary in expressing the view that the curtilage of a building must always be small or that the notion of smallness was inherent in that expression. The deputy judge was mistaken in treating Dyer as having such clear force. Not only was it concerned with “disproprietory” legislation, but Calderdale and Debenhams were not cited, and the court’s observations about smallness were not, on the facts of Dyer, necessary to the decision. In the context of Part 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the curtilage of a substantial listed building is likely to extend to what are or have been, in terms of ownership and function, ancillary buildings. As noted in Calderdale, physical layout also comes into the matter. The curtilage within which a building such as Grimsdyke’s satellite buildings were found was bound to be relatively limited, but the concept of smallness, in this context, was so completely relative as to be almost meaningless as a criterion. The Secretary of State did not err in law and PPG 15 was not incomplete in making no reference to smallness.
John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the appellants; Christopher Katkowski QC (instructed by Actons, of Nottingham) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke
