References: [1981] JPL 752
Coram: Comyn J
The court was asked whether an extension of a listed building which involved the demolition of parts of the listed building constituted demolition within the meaning of the Act which required the proposal to be notified to various interested bodies by the local planning authority.
Held: The dominant word in the provisions about demolition, alteration and extension was the word ‘demolition,’ especially where, under the interpretation section, demolition was deemed to refer not only to a building but also to part of a building.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Shimizu (UK) Ltd -v- Westminster City Council HL (Gazette 12-Mar-97, Times 11-Feb-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] 1 All ER 481, [1997] UKHL 3, [1997] 1 WLR 168)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20-Nov-15 Ref: 226087