Arndale Properties Ltd, R (on the application of) v Worcester City Council

A conservation area must be designated to protect or enhance the character or appearance of an area of special architectural or historic interest. The power cannot lawfully be used as a pretext for preventing the demolition of a particular building. The authority must have sufficient information to identify the area’s special interest, character and appearance, and to explain why preservation or enhancement is desirable. A decision may be quashed where the material before the decision-maker is merely a list of features and does not rationally support the statutory judgment. The absence of consultation is not itself unlawful where consultation is not statutorily required, but it may indicate haste, an improper purpose and an inadequate evidential basis.

The claimant owned a sports ground containing an unlisted pavilion which it intended to demolish. After unsuccessful attempts to secure listing and the service of a building preservation notice, Worcester City Council designated the surrounding area as a conservation area under Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, thereby requiring conservation area consent for demolition. The first designation included land outside the council’s jurisdiction and was replaced by a second designation with an amended boundary.

The claimant sought judicial review of both designations, alleging improper purpose, inadequate consideration of the statutory criteria, lack of evidence, failure to follow guidance and irrationality. The central issue was whether the designations genuinely concerned the preservation or enhancement of an area of special architectural or historic interest, or were a device to prevent demolition of the pavilion.

1. Both designations quashed. The court upheld the challenge to the original designation and, since the re-designation addressed only the jurisdictional boundary defect, the challenge to the second designation succeeded as well. Both applications for judicial review were granted.
2. Under section 69(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the local planning authority had to form judgments on three matters: whether the area had special architectural or historic interest; what its character and appearance were; and whether it was desirable to preserve or enhance that character or appearance.
3. The power could not be used as a pretext to prevent demolition of a particular building. The court assessed the evidence as a whole and concluded that preventing demolition of the pavilion was the real purpose of the designation. The urgency, the absence of meaningful consultation, the notification’s emphasis on stopping demolition, the lack of consideration of the boundary and the inadequate report all reinforced that conclusion.
4. The report provided only a summary list of six features. It did not explain why those features were of special architectural or historic interest, describe the area’s character or appearance, identify the elements contributing to or detracting from that character, or explain why preservation or enhancement was desirable. The committee therefore lacked sufficient material to make the statutory judgment rationally.
5. There was no statutory duty to consult before designation. Nevertheless, the absence of consultation was relevant evidentially because it demonstrated the haste of the process and confirmed that the report contained no meaningful basis for consultation. The court did not need to determine the separate irrationality ground.
6. Costs were ordered to be subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis. Permission to appeal was refused, although the time for seeking permission from the Court of Appeal was extended to 14 days after receipt of the approved judgment.

Not stated in the judgment.