Judge, R (on the application of) v The First Secretary of State & Anor

Listed building consent may authorise the dismantling and reconstruction of a listed building at another location. The statutory scheme permits demolition subject to reconstruction conditions, even if component parts temporarily become chattels. The court assesses the legality of the consent by applying the statutory code, not by using property-law concepts detached from that code. A decision-maker must have adequate material to assess the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and features of special architectural or historic interest. A challenge succeeds only if the decision that the material was adequate is Wednesbury perverse. “Relocation” may be used as shorthand for demolition followed by reconstruction where the consent and conditions make that process clear.

The claimant sought judicial review under section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 of the Secretary of State’s decision granting Middlesbrough Borough Council listed building consent to relocate the Grade II listed Sir Samuel Sadler statue within Victoria Square.

He argued that the Secretary of State lacked sufficient historical information, misunderstood the extent of the listed memorial, and had no power to authorise relocation because dismantling would turn its component parts into chattels. The central issues were whether the decision was within the statutory powers and whether any procedural requirement had been breached.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant’s grounds of challenge were misconceived. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £6,280. The second defendant sought no costs.
2. The material supplied to the Secretary of State included plans, photographs, descriptions, a statement of significance, a method statement and representations from relevant bodies. That was sufficient material to enable the necessary judgment under section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The decision-maker had to decide whether the material was adequate. A challenge to that judgment could succeed only if it were Wednesbury perverse.
3. The consent covered the memorial as a whole, including the bronze figure, plinth, commemorative plaques and semi-circular dwarf wall. The references in the decision letter to the Council’s letter and enclosures incorporated the detailed descriptions, plans and method statement.
4. The property-law argument was irrelevant. Planning is a statutory code. Sections 7 and 17 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 permit consent for demolition subject to reconstruction of the building, in whole or in part. That power is not lost because component parts may temporarily cease to be part of the land. The approach in R v Leominster District Council ex parte Antique Country Buildings Ltd and Others [1987] 56 PCR 240 was wholly persuasive.
5. Although the Act does not expressly use the word “relocation”, it was lawful to use it as shorthand for dismantling or demolition followed by reconstruction. The conditions required an approved method of dismantling and re-erection within one year. Those requirements accorded with sections 7 and 17. Condition (v) was reasonable on the material before the Secretary of State because no realistic obstacle to any necessary planning permission had been identified.