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 building cannot itself be a listed building.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Griffiths, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead
Gazette 12-Mar-1997, Times 11-Feb-1997, [1997] 1 All ER 481, [1997] UKHL 3, [1997] 1 WLR 168
House of Lords, Bailii
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Citing:
Appeal from – 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’, . .
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 – Regina v North Hertfordshire District Council, Ex parte Sullivan 19-May-1981
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 . .
Cited – Debenhams Plc v Westminster City Council HL 1987
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 . .
Cited – Customs and Excise Commissioners v Viva Gas Appliances Limited HL 1983
Any work on the fabric of a building constituted its alteration ‘except that which is so slight or trivial as to attract the application of the de minimis rule’. The word ‘demolition’ meant destroying the building as a whole. . .
Cited – Furniss (Inspector of Taxes) v Dawson HL 9-Feb-1983
The transfer of shares to a subsidiary as part of a planned scheme immediately to transfer them to an outside purchaser was regarded as a taxable disposition to the outside purchaser rather than an exempt transfer to a group company. In defined . .
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 . .
Cited – East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Hobson Admn 18-Apr-2008
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: . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Land
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.89238
