Silus Investments SA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hounslow

A conservation area may be designated urgently after a threat to demolish a building, provided the authority applies the statutory test to the area as a whole. Protecting a particular building may prompt consideration, but cannot be the purpose of designation.

Where an authority voluntarily promises consultation, it must provide sufficient reasons, adequate time and conscientiously consider the responses. A legitimate expectation may be withdrawn only where the authority has reasonable grounds and the change is fair. Serious denial of a proper opportunity to respond will rarely be cured by asserting that the representations would have made no difference.

The claimant, owner of a locally listed public house, sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority’s decision to designate the Chiswick High Road Conservation Area. It alleged an improper purpose, procedural unfairness and reliance on a misleading officer’s report.

The authority had previously considered designation but acted urgently after receiving notice of proposed demolition. It announced a seven-day consultation, excluded the claimant from direct notification, and made the designation decision before the consultation closed. The central issues were whether the designation was unlawful because it was intended to prevent demolition, whether the consultation was fair, and whether relief should be refused because the claimant had not identified objections on the merits.

1. Improper purpose. The statutory question under Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, section 69, was whether the area was of special architectural or historic interest whose character or appearance it was desirable to preserve or enhance. The authority could be prompted by the threatened demolition of a locally listed building which contributed to the area, but it could not designate merely to protect that building. The officer’s report applied the statutory criteria to the area as a whole. The designation was therefore not made for an improper purpose.
2. Consultation. By announcing consultation, the authority accepted a legitimate expectation to consult fairly. The minimum standards were not met. The notice gave insufficient reasons, seven days was too short in the circumstances, and the decision-maker acted before the consultation responses had been received. The authority’s concern about pre-emptive demolition did not justify reducing the consultation to two days and deciding on 21 August.
3. Withdrawal of the promised period. The supposed urgency was not established. The decision-maker could have acted between 27 August and 2 September, service could have been made on the claimant’s agents, and another Cabinet member could have decided the matter. Reliance on an incorrect informal indication of the decision-maker’s availability was insufficient.
4. Officer’s report and relief. The report should have disclosed the recent history of consultation, the uncompleted consultation period and the absence of direct consultation with landowners. The claimant had been denied a meaningful opportunity to make reasoned representations. It was impermissible to assume that those representations would have made no difference. The decision was quashed once the claimant undertook not to demolish the public house or apply for prior approval for six months, and agreed to give a corresponding undertaking under section 106 of the 1990 Act.

First-instance judicial review. No earlier decision is stated in the judgment.