The authority appealed by case stated from the dismissal of its complaints that the defendant had altered a listed building. He had been given permission to carry out certain works, but had in effect demolished and rebuilt the property.
Held: Had the prosecution been mounted as the works progressed, the works would have been shown to have altered the character of the buildings, but the final building did not have that characteristic. The district judge had been correct to allow for this and the appeal failed.
Judges:
Keene LJ, Treacy J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1003 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 9
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Major Sandhu CACD 10-Dec-1996
The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for infringements of the 1990 Act. The house was already very severly dilapidated when it came to be listed. He was accused of making changes outside the extent of the listed buildings consent he . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267573