D. wanting to develop an office block, bought neighbouring semi-detached houses hoping to provide additional car parking, enhancing the visual aspects and improving highway safety. When temporary planning consent for use of these properties as site offices ran out without being used, D began to demolish the properties which were not listed and not in a conservation area. The council issued enforcement notices; D appealed to the secretary of state. The Inspector quashed the notices on the ground that demolition did not require planning consent.
Held: allowing the Council’s appeal and remitting the case to the secretary of state, that (1) The inspector had erred in concluding that in no circumstances could total demolition constitute development; (2) demolition of the houses did not amount to development within the meaning of section 22(1) and 290(1) and the inspector had erred in failing to address this question; (3) demolition of these houses was a building operation and accordingly did constitute development in that it was an ‘other operation normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder’
Otherwise: Cambridge City Council v Secretary of State for the Environment
David Widdicombe QC
(1992) 64 P and CR 257
Town and Country planning Act 1971 20(1) 290(1)
England and Wales
Cited – London County Council v Marks and Spencer Ltd CA 1952
While demolition works as such did not require planning permission, works which comprised demolition, site clearance and the erection of a new building on the site were operations for which planning permission would have been required but for the . .
Cited – Iddenden v Secretary of State for the environment CA 1972
The appellant took a site in a residential area on which were certain buildings, including a workshop. The appellant applied for permission to replace the existing buildings with a new workshop and garage, but was refused. He nevertheless went ahead . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 14-May-2010
The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not . .
Appeal from – Cambridge County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 2-Jan-1992
D was carrying out an office development. On land adjacent to the development there were two houses used as site offices whilst the development was undertaken. D began to demolish the houses to provide car parking and Improvements to the amenity of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.415075