The extended definition of ‘listed building’ in section 54(9) applied equally for the purposes of paragraph 2(c) of Schedule 1 of the 1967 Act. No rates were to be payable in respect of a hereditament for any period during which it was included in a list complied or approved under section 54 of the 1971 Act. It would be absurd if a structure subject to building control by the 1971 Act were to be treated as not so subjected for the purpose of some other Act dealing with the consequences of listing. ‘A large part of the argument for the appellants was directed to the proposition that the words in section 54(9) ‘for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to listed buildings and building preservation notices’ had the effect that the enactment which followed them was not to be taken into account for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the General Rate Act 1967. In my opinion that proposition is ill-founded. The quoted words have the effect, for the purposes of the listed building provisions of the Act, of widening the definition of ‘building’ in section 290(1) of the Act of 1971. No other effect can properly be attributed to them. It would be an absurd result, such as cannot have been intended by Parliament, if a structure subjected to listed building control by the Act of 1971, were to be treated as not so subjected for the purpose of some other Act dealing with the consequences of listing.’
References: [1987] AC 396, [1987] 1 All ER 51, [1986] 3 WLR 1063
Judges: Lord Keith of Kinkel
Statutes: Town and Country Planning Act 1971 54(9), General Rate Act 1967 Sch1 2(c)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zielinski Baker and Partners Limited HL 26-Feb-2004
The commissioners sought to charge to VAT charges for works which had been carried out to a building within the curtilage of a listed building. The taxpayer sought zero-rating.
Held: The outbuilding to which alterations were made must have . .
([2004] BTC 5249, [2004] 1 WLR 707, [2004] STI 502, [2004] STC 456, [2004] 10 EGCS 185, [2004] 2 All ER 141, [2004] BVC 309, , [2004] UKHL 7, , Times 27-Feb-04, Gazette 25-Mar-04) - Cited – Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council HL 11-Feb-1997
The removal of a listed building’s chimney stacks was an alteration allowing a claim for compensation. The phrases ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition’ are mutually exclusive. Although part of a building may be a listed building, a part of a listed . .
(Gazette 12-Mar-97, Times 11-Feb-97, , , [1997] 1 All ER 481, [1997] UKHL 3, [1997] 1 WLR 168)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193894
