Freemont (Denbigh) Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Welsh Ministers & Anor

Under section 55 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, representations against a payment notice are confined to the statutory grounds: necessity, the duration of temporary arrangements, reasonableness of the amount, and hardship. The Minister has no general jurisdiction to investigate alleged fraud, determine the validity of the urgent works notice, or decide whether enforcement would be inequitable. An urgent works notice is adequate if it describes the contemplated works with sufficient clarity, having regard to the emergency context. It need not include cost estimates. Hardship is a question of fact approached on the correct legal basis. Allegations of wider impropriety that do not bear on the statutory questions may properly be excluded from both payment-notice and compulsory-purchase inquiries.

The claimant owned the former North Wales Hospital site, containing severely deteriorated listed buildings. The local authority carried out urgent preservation works under sections 54 and 55 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, then served payment notices for the costs. The Minister confirmed three challenged notices.

The authority also made a compulsory purchase order under section 47 of the 1990 Act. Following an inquiry, the Minister confirmed the order. The claimant brought linked proceedings challenging both decisions, alleging that the authority had acted fraudulently, had mishandled a payment received from the claimant’s bank, had concealed a schedule of works, and had pursued the compulsory purchase for an improper purpose.

The central issues were whether those matters fell within the statutory inquiries, whether the urgent works notice was adequate, whether recovery would cause hardship, and whether the compulsory purchase order was unlawful.

1. Both claims dismissed. Permission to proceed with the judicial review was refused as totally without merit, and the application to quash the compulsory purchase order was dismissed as totally without merit.
2. Section 55(4) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 specifies the matters that may be raised against a payment notice. The Minister’s role is limited to determining those representations. Allegations that the authority acted fraudulently or improperly in other respects, challenges to the validity of the urgent works notice, and general objections to enforcement fall outside that procedure. Those matters were therefore irrelevant and inadmissible in the payment-notice inquiry.
3. The urgent works notice was sufficiently clear. The works were described on its face, and the claimant understood, or should have understood, their nature and scale. The notice did not require a cost estimate or a separate schedule of works. The later-disclosed schedule was immaterial to the notice’s validity.
4. Hardship is a question of fact, approached on the correct legal basis. The inspector considered the financial consequences, the relationship between expenditure and benefit, and the evidence concerning the claimant and its shareholder. His conclusion that hardship had not been established disclosed no error of law.
5. The compulsory purchase inquiry properly focused on whether reasonable steps were being taken to preserve the listed building and whether there was a compelling case in the public interest. The inspector was entitled to refuse further disclosure about the bank settlement where the claimant could not articulate a coherent legal entitlement to the money and the material had no sufficient bearing on those issues.
6. The evidence did not establish fraud, improper motive, or an unlawful conspiracy to obtain the site. The Minister was entitled to accept the inspectors’ conclusions and confirm the notices and the order.

The judgment is a first-instance decision. It records earlier unsuccessful procedural applications concerning the compulsory purchase inquiry, including refusal of permission and interim relief by other High Court judges.