CONTEXT 36 - December 1992

28 details'. How can we do that if we are not informed in the first place? As the drafting of the new PPG continues in Marsham Street, we are very graceful to Charles Mynors for publicising these particularly difficult points of interpretation. If as a result the legislation can be clarified then he will have performed a very useful service. We are not optimistic about this, however, since we do not appear to be living in the best of all possible worlds peopled by reasonable men and women. Mr Mynors might be surprised to learn that after the issuing of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which unhelpfully separates "works for the alteration or extension of a listed building" from "works for the demolition of a listed building", certain local authority officers with particularly forensic minds, allied with a desire to reduce their department photocopying, have sought to argue that there are now Secondly, two cases relating to listed buildings - both, as it happens, in London, and within a short distance of each other. Lambeth: reuseallegedlynotpossible The more famous of the two is County Hall. Permission had been granted to the London Residuary Body for its reuse as a hotel; that led to litigation that was eventually resolved (in favour of the LRB) in the House of Lords. The Secretary of State now granted further planning permissions, Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent; and Lambeth LBC, as local planning authority, appealed against his decision to the High Court. The first point considered by Mr Justice Pill (see Lambeth LBC v SSE and London Residuary Body, [ 1992] EGCS 17) was the extent of the curtilage of County Hall. He agreed with the view of the I nspeccor, that the North, South and Island blocks were included; a court could not substitute its version of the facts. As with all decisions on curtilage, this one turns very much on its particular facts, and thus adds little. Secondly, the judge noted that the inspector had stated that, although the most appropriate use for the building would be local government, there was no possibility of such a use being resumed if permission was refused; and alrernative use muse therefore be found which respected the features of the building - and which might actually come to pass. This use did chat, and the Secretary of Scace had no duty to inquire any more closely. Not surprisingly, the case then proceeded co the Court of Appeal (reported at [1992] JPL 759), where the two separate procedures, one of which requires notification co RCHME and one which does not. We suspect chat there will be a continuing need for our own leaflets until such time as the law is able co state absolutely what is and what is not demolition. John Bold is Head of Architecture at the RCHME. Those who appear at planning inquiries will know that no barrister can resist trying to have the last word. I am thereforegrateful to the Editor for allowing me an opportunity to respond - briefly! - to the above comments by the RCHM I entirely agree with John Bold that a planning authority should use its powers under the Act [P(LBCA)A 1990, S 10(2)(b)] to ensure chat every application for listed building consent and Conservation Area Consent contains sufficient details to enable the authority to be quite clear as to what is actually 2. LISTED BUILDINGS decision was upheld. Ic was also noted that written evidence had been submitted by the PSA indicating chat there was no possibility of the building being used by central government either. This decision echoes the advice in para 89 of Circular 8/87, to consider both the original use of a listed building and any possible alternatives. It emphasises chat it is necessary to consider not just whether that original use could physically resume, but also whether realistically it is likely co do so. The other interesting feature of this case is that the inspector had favoured the setting up of a contingency fund to safeguard the future of the building in the event of the permitted development not being completed - Battersea Power Station being a notable example of another large listed building where grand proposals had failed to come to fruition. Unfortunately, however, there was no statutory power co enable its creation; and the inspector had recommended that permission should still be granted, even without it. The failure to establish such a fund was thus insufficient to justify overturning his decision. Instead, a condition that the building should not be occupied until the works were completed would go some way towards meeting the understandable concern on this score. Southwark: restoration allegedlynot viable Less Famous than County Hall, perhaps, is 52A Borough High Street, Southwark. This is also a listed building, however, even though it was only listed a year before consent was sought co demolish it, and it is in the Borough High Street proposed. My remarks about considering what term best describes the proposed works (see item (d) in the Conclusions) were therefore not intended to imply chat planning officers should merely accept the description suggested by the applicants - we all know the application for major demolition and structural alteration which is described as "refurbishment and improvements". What I had in mind was rather chat the officer should first understand, by reference to the drawings and other material submitted, the true nature of rhe proposal, and should then consider what term he or she would use to describe it. If it is clearly 'demolition', then so be it; but if, considering the works as a whole, they really amount to 'alteration', then chat is an indication (although not an infallible one) that the application should be processed accordingly. Charles Mynors Conservation Area. le is also in very poor condition, as a result of neglect. Consent for demolition was refused; and an inspector dismissed the subsequent appeal (which was on the basis of written representations), not least on the basis of the effect on the Conservation Area of the proposed four-storey replacement. The appellant appealed, arguing chat the inspector had failed to cake into account the state of the listed building, the cost of its repair, and the effect on the area if it was left in its existing poor condition. The appeal to the courts failed too (Henry Davis & Co v SSE and Southwark LBC [1992] EGCS 61). Even where an appeal was by written representations, it was still necessary co produce actual evidence as to the cost of refurbishment works and the resulting value of the building, co substantiate a claim that restoration was not viable - mere comment was not enough. The inspector in this case had issued a shorter decision letter than would have been appropriate in a case decided at an inquiry, but it still had correccly identified the main issues, and set out his conclusions and the reasons for chem. This is not a major landmark decision, but it is a textbook example of the need co consider carefully the preparation of proper evidence (and not mere comment') to substantiate allegations as to condition and viability. That applies to written representation cases as much as to inquiries; and it applies as much co a planning authority seeking to show that restoration is viable as it does to an appellant seeking to show that it is not. CONTEXT 36

Made with FlippingBook

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=