C O N T E X T 1 3 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 3 11 Notwithstanding objections by theVictorian Society, the building remains earmarked for demolition. More recently, a judicial review case in London has been brought byWestminster City Council and English Heritage objecting to the controversial Elizabeth House development. Permission was granted for the scheme by the London Borough of Lambeth in November 2012 and the secretary of state, Eric Pickles, confirmed in March that he would not call in the application for his own determination, despite objections that it would cause substantial harm to the setting of theWestminster world heritage site. As a result, UNESCO is considering whether to place the site on its endangered list, the first step in the removal of international heritage status.The review will focus on the decision-making process and the reasons given, potentially questioning the level of protection afforded heritage under the NPPF. In March of this year, the secretary of state failed to call for a public inquiry on Sheffield City Council’s decision to allow the University of Sheffield to demolish Jessop Hospital. In June, judicial review proceedings were issued by theVictorian Society and SAVE Britain’s Heritage to save the Grade II listed Edwardian building. Approval was granted by the council despite strong local opposition and objections by the Victorian Society, the Sheffield Sustainable Development andDesign Panel, the Ancient Monuments Society, the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group and the Hallamshire Historic Buildings Society. Justification for the council’s decision was based on the ‘substantial public benefits’ provision in the NPPF, with jobs and the anticipated boost to the local economy deemed prevalent over the loss of the heritage asset.The judicial review attempt was turned down by the High Court and a further attempt to appeal the judgment was made to the Court of Appeal in July.The appeal hinged on the interpretation of paragraph 133 in the NPPF: ‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.’ Representing the claimants, Richard Harwood QC argued that SheffieldCity Council should have considered the substantial public benefits achievable by the demolition only, rather than those of the whole scheme. In other words, would the demolition be a greater public benefit than a scheme retaining the listed building or its facade, thereby justifying its demolition? While accepting the point of law, the Court of Appeal held that the public benefits of non-demolition had been taken into account by the council.The appeal was rejected, allowing demolition of the Edwardian wing of Jessops Hospital. The ruling is an important test case of the NPPF, setting precedent on the weight given by councils on the public benefit when considering the loss of listed buildings in development proposals. Fiona Deaton is a freelance heritage consultant, Maisna Heritage Award-winning architects giving old buildings a new future Civic Trust Award Community Recognition IHBC North West Award for Conservation Purcell. Thoughtfully designed evolution. www.purcelluk.com MOLA We discharge planning conditions speedily and cost effectively providing a range of built heritage services from historic building assessment to on-site recording, measured survey and professional photography www.mola.org.uk business@mola.org.uk 020 7410 2200 Mortimer Wheeler House 46 Eagle wharf Road London N1 7ED MUSEUM OF LONDON ARCHAEOLOGY OLA Independent advice and professional services for archaeology and built heritage MOLA ad aug13_Layout 1 13/08/2013 11:10 Page 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=