Gough, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In a challenge to a listed-building appeal decision, an inspector is entitled to use specialist planning expertise and make informed value judgments. The court must not re-evaluate the planning merits. A reasons challenge succeeds only where the reasons are unintelligible or inadequate and the claimant has suffered substantial prejudice. An application for listed building consent must contain sufficient plans and drawings to enable the decision-maker to assess the completed works against the statutory duty to preserve the building and its special features. Consent cannot ordinarily be granted for only part of an incompletely described scheme while leaving the resulting appearance for later determination.

The claimants challenged an inspector’s dismissal of their appeal against refusal of listed building consent for works to a listed building at 15 West Street, Oundle. The proposed works included structural rebuilding of the front elevation and replacement of a nineteenth-century shop front with a domestic window.

The challenge under section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 alleged that the inspector had relied on no evidence, gave inadequate reasons, and should have approved the structural works separately subject to a condition requiring later details. The central issues were the permissible use of the inspector’s expertise, the adequacy of the decision letter, and whether the statutory scheme permitted severable approval of the proposed works.

1. Grounds one and two dismissed. The inspector had evidence capable of supporting his conclusion that structural stabilisation could be achieved without permanent loss of the shop front. The court was not entitled to second-guess the planning merits or re-resolve the evidence. An inspector is an expert tribunal and may make planning value judgments within his expertise, subject to the usual limits of legality and rationality.
2. The reasons concerning the structural engineer’s report were adequate. Read with the appeal documentation, paragraph 4 of the decision letter showed that the inspector accepted the inadequacy and deterioration of the existing beam but considered that structural steelwork could be introduced without permanently removing the shop front.
3. The reasons were also adequate concerning retention of the shop front and future living conditions. The inspector explained that the shop front recorded a significant historical development of the building and made clear that future proposals would need to preserve it. The reasoning satisfied the approach stated by Lord Brown in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953.
4. The proposed severable approval was not available. Under section 10(2)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the application had to contain the plans and drawings necessary to describe the works. Section 16(2) required special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting, and features of special architectural or historic interest. An application showing what would be removed or altered, but not how the building would appear after the works, would not provide the information needed to discharge that duty.
5. The application documents, including the before-and-after plan, were reasonably understood as seeking consent for the complete scheme, including replacement of the shop front. The application was therefore properly considered and refused as a whole. The claim was dismissed, and judgment was entered for the first defendant with costs assessed at £3,500.