Meyrick, R (On the Application Of) v Bournemouth Borough Council

When assessing whether substantial harm to a designated heritage asset is justified under paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework, viability is not determined solely by a positive residual land value. It also requires consideration of whether the development provides a sufficient incentive for the land to come forward. Historic land costs are not automatically irrelevant.

Deliberate neglect means a conscious decision to fail to take proper care of the asset. It need not be proved that the neglect was intended specifically to obtain planning permission. A local planning authority may reasonably rely on professional viability assessments where its conclusion is properly explained. The discretionary decision whether to serve a maintenance notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not legally inconsistent with recognising that a site is derelict.

The claimant sought judicial review of Bournemouth Borough Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the demolition of Radcliffe Court, an unlisted Victorian building in a conservation area, and its replacement by a block of flats.

The Council accepted that the proposal would cause substantial harm to a heritage asset. It concluded that the alternative requirements in paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework were satisfied, including that refurbishment was not viable and that no suitable conservation use had emerged. The claimant challenged the decision on four grounds concerning viability, deliberate neglect, the failure to serve a maintenance notice, and the adequacy of a condition requiring demolition to proceed continuously with redevelopment.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Council’s decision to grant planning permission was lawful.
2. Viability under paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework could not be assessed simply by identifying a positive residual land value. The Planning Practice Guidance stated that viability also depended on whether the proposal created sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and the development to occur. There was no rule excluding historic purchase prices from the assessment. The Council was entitled to weigh the competing professional evidence and accept the District Valuer Service’s conclusion that refurbishment was not viable. That conclusion was a matter of professional judgment and was not irrational.
3. The claimant’s offer to purchase the site did not render the Council’s conclusion unlawful. The officer’s report had summarised the offer and was entitled to regard it as lacking credibility. There was no evidence that the offer amounted to charitable ownership within paragraph 133.
4. “Deliberate neglect” in paragraph 130 meant a conscious decision to fail to take proper care of a heritage asset. The narrower suggestion in the Planning Practice Guidance that neglect must be intended to make permission easier to obtain went too far. Nevertheless, the Council had considered the history of the site and the relevant ownership interests and was entitled to conclude that deliberate neglect had not been established.
5. Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 conferred a discretion rather than imposing a duty to serve a notice. The Council’s decision not to use that power, having considered costs and administrative burdens, was not irrationally inconsistent with its assessment of the site’s condition. The challenge to condition 3 also failed: the condition requiring demolition to be carried out continuously with redevelopment disclosed no legal defect.

Permission to appeal on grounds 1 and 2 was refused. Costs were ordered against the claimant, subject to a limit of £5,000.

The judgment itself records that an earlier planning permission had been quashed by consent following a previous judicial review. The present claim challenged the Council’s subsequent planning permission. The High Court dismissed the claim and refused permission to appeal.