Maxwell, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire Council

In determining conservation area consent, the statutory duty to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the area does not impose an absolute prohibition on demolishing an old building. A building making a positive contribution attracts a general presumption in favour of retention, but that presumption may be outweighed by the merits of an appropriate replacement and the condition and value of the existing building.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 requires consideration of the broad criteria used for listed-building demolition, but does not require precisely the same strict approach. An officers’ report need not reproduce all policy wording. It must substantively equip the decision-maker to apply the law and consider the material factors.

The claimant sought judicial review of Wiltshire Council’s renewed decision to grant conservation area consent for the demolition of an unlisted cottage in Little Cheverell conservation area and its replacement by a modern building of broadly similar dimensions and appearance.

An earlier consent had been quashed after the Council submitted to judgment because its reasons were inadequate. On reconsideration, the planning committee accepted that the cottage made a positive contribution to the conservation area, but concluded that the replacement would enhance its character and appearance. The claimant challenged the decision on the grounds of inadequate regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, failure properly to apply that guidance, and irrationality.

1. Claim dismissed. The committee lawfully granted conservation area consent.
2. Under sections 72 and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the focus is the character and appearance of the conservation area. The statutory scheme does not make demolition of an old or unlisted building invariably unacceptable.
3. Paragraph 4.27 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 creates a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution. Its reference to the same broad criteria as listed-building demolition guidance does not import the identical strict approach applicable to listed buildings. The decision-maker may balance the existing building’s condition, repair cost, efforts to retain it, and the merits of the replacement proposal.
4. The committee was entitled to treat the replacement building’s similar design, improved finish and retention of the existing setting as relevant to whether the area would be enhanced. The assessment was not an impermissible subjective claim based merely on superior architectural merit.
5. The standard applicable to an officers’ report differs from the standard for reasons given by the final decision-maker. The report must give the decision-maker sufficient guidance on the legal approach and material considerations. It need not reproduce every relevant policy paragraph or all underlying material. The report met that standard.
6. The irrationality challenge failed. It was lawful and rational to permit demolition of an old but undistinguished building where the committee considered that a modern replacement of similar appearance would make a greater contribution to the conservation area.

An earlier grant of conservation area consent was quashed after the Council submitted to judgment because its reasons were inadequate. The present claim concerned the Council’s subsequent reconsideration and fresh decision.