Burnley Borough Council, R (On the Application Of) v Huron Properties Ltd

Whether a building is listed is a question of law determined by objectively interpreting the listing entry as a whole. The court may consider the location, descriptive material, appearance and relevant surrounding context where the location alone does not identify the listed subject with sufficient clarity. The statutory definition of building may include part of a building, but that does not resolve what the listing actually comprises. A listing focused on one part may nevertheless extend to the whole of a single integrated building where the entry, read contextually, supports that conclusion. Questions stated as abstract propositions should not be answered where their application depends on the particular factual context and an answer could mislead.

Burnley Borough Council appealed by case stated against the dismissal of its complaint for more than £40,000 in non-domestic rates relating to unoccupied premises. The property comprised an older white part and a later red-brick part, which had become internally seamless and operated as one unit before listing in 1977.

The central issue was whether the listing covered the whole building or only the red part. The parties agreed that liability depended on whether the whole property was a listed building and therefore fell within the relevant exemption.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s decision that the rates were not due was upheld. The decision below was not wrong and no procedural irregularity was alleged.
2. The scope of a listing is determined objectively as a question of law. The entry must be read sensibly and contextually as a whole. The court may consider descriptive material, the building’s appearance and relevant history where these assist in identifying the listed building or resolving ambiguity.
3. The extended meaning of building in section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, incorporating section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, did not itself determine the scope of the listing.
4. It was permissible to conclude that the whole integrated building was listed, having regard to the entry, photographs, the altered interior and the fact that the red and white parts had long formed one internally seamless property. References to the Secretary of State’s intention had to be understood objectively rather than subjectively.
5. Questions 1 and 3 in the case stated were not answered because they were insufficiently tied to the facts and could mislead if treated as abstract propositions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by case stated dismissed and the Magistrates’ Court decision upheld.
• Burnley and Rossendale Magistrates’ Court: District Judge James Clarke dismissed the council’s complaint.