C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 LEGAL BRIEFING Unlisted buildings and conservation areas Charles Mynors considers two legal decisions relating to buildings, neither listed nor in a conservation area, that were thought by some to be worthy of preservation. Many of the decisions of the courts relating to the built heritage concern listed buildings. But there are many other buildings and areas that are of architectural or historic interest, and that are thought by some to be worthy of preservation. The two decisions noted here both relate to the effect of proposed development in inner London – the first (R (England) v Tower Hamlets LBC) concerns the loss of a historic loading canopy on a canal-side warehouse, neither listed nor in a conservation area; the second (R (Sager House) v Secretary of State) the carrying out of development affecting views from a conservation area. Demolition of unlisted buildings The Tower Hamlets case related to a canopy, built in 1964, to a pattern of which there were only three examples in the London area. Attempts had been made, unsuccessfully, to persuade English Heritage to recommend it for listing. It was to be demolished in the course of constructing a substantial housing development, for which planning permission had been granted. The High Court granted an injunction preventing its demolition, three days before it was due to take place, and considered the matter fully some two weeks later. The grounds of the application to quash the permission were, first, that the local authority committee had not been directed to consider the policy in the London Plan relating to the Blue Ribbon Network; and, second, that it had misunderstood the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) relating to the demolition of unlisted buildings. The application for an injunction failed, because the provisions of section 55(1A)(a) of the Planning Act and the TCP (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 1995 made under section 55(2)(g) together had the effect that the demolition of an unlisted building in such a case was not development, and therefore did not require planning permission. Nevertheless, the attempt to have the permission quashed continued. The claimant felt that, if it succeeded, the council might decide that it wanted a development in accordance with the Blue Ribbon approach, and that the developer might therefore possibly decide that it was not in its interest to demolish the canopy. The relevant policy in the London Plan
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=