Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council: CA 20 Dec 1994

The phrases ‘demolition’ and ‘alteration’ are mutually exclusive concepts when used for the purposes of the Planning Acts.
Held: When section 27(1)(a) referred to ‘an application for . . consent for the alteration . . of a listed building’, the words in their context did not include an application for consent for works which consisted of or included demolition of part of a building. The concepts of ‘demolition’ and ‘alteration’ were mutually exclusive, to the extent of precluding the demolition of a part of the building from amounting to an alteration of the whole. Millett LJ said: This was with reluctance and regret, but he was persuaded that the opposite view could not be maintained in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Act, as they dealt separately with the authorisation of works of alteration or extension on the one hand and works of demolition on the other.
Russell LJ (dissenting) said that the question whether a particular activity was ‘demolition’ or ‘alteration’ of a building was essentially a question of fact to be determined in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that the court should not interfere in the finding of the Lands Tribunal if the member was entitled on the material before him to reach he conclusion that he did and that, as he was entitled to reach that conclusion, his decision should not be disturbed.
Millett LJ and Sir Ralph Gibson, Russell LJ dissenting
Ind Summary 13-Feb-1995
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromShimizu (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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.89239