Trillium (Prime) Property Gp Ltd v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Rev 1)

A conservation area must be designated because the area satisfies the statutory criteria, not merely to prevent demolition of a particular unlisted building. The building may nevertheless form part of the area’s special architectural or historic interest, and the risk of its demolition may justify urgent designation where demolition would harm that area.

A decision may be unlawful where the officer’s report materially misleads members, omits relevant matters, or directs attention to immaterial considerations. A legitimate expectation of consultation may be displaced only where the authority reasonably concludes that consultation creates a real risk of material harm to the proposal itself.

The claimant owned an unlisted former Labour Exchange beside the Limehouse Cut. The defendant local planning authority designated the Limehouse Cut Conservation Area urgently and without consulting the claimant, shortly after the claimant served notice of intended demolition.

The claimant challenged the designation on improper purpose, irrationality, material omissions and misleading statements in the report to Cabinet, failure to identify background papers, breach of legitimate expectation and breach of a planning performance agreement. The central issues were whether the designation was genuinely based on the statutory conservation-area criteria and whether the decision-making process was lawful.

1. Improper purpose. The court held that the initial impetus for reconsidering designation was the desire to protect the building, but that was not unlawful. The decisive question was whether the Council genuinely considered that the wider area satisfied section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A building could lawfully be relevant if it made a positive contribution to the special character of the area. The officers had reached a genuine professional view that the Limehouse Cut and associated buildings merited designation. The urgency was intended to prevent demolition from harming that area, rather than to protect the building alone.
2. Report to Cabinet. The report was materially misleading. It omitted the officers’ recent rejection of designation and the refusal of local listing for the building. It overstated English Heritage’s support, wrongly stated that a designation statement was included, and retained a reference to benefits for Bartlett Park although the Park was not included. These omissions deprived members of a balanced account and caused them to ignore relevant considerations.
3. The report also unlawfully treated the ability to support wider local-policy objectives as important to designation. Ecological and biodiversity objectives were not part of the statutory test, although accessibility might bear on whether the area had a character worth enhancing.
4. Background papers and consultation. The Council breached the statutory requirements concerning background papers, but that breach did not invalidate the decision and caused no material prejudice. The claimant had a legitimate expectation of consultation, arising from policy, established practice and an unqualified representation by an officer. That expectation could be displaced if consultation created a real and reasonably grounded risk of pre-emptive demolition causing material harm. On the evidence, the absence of consultation was justified, although the urgency report itself was misleading and omitted material facts.
5. The designation of the Limehouse Cut Conservation Area was quashed because of the materially misleading report, omitted relevant considerations and reliance on immaterial policy objectives.