CONTEXT 180 : JUNE 2024 9 Legal update Alexandra Fairclough writes: The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is consulting on aspects of ‘An accelerated planning system’ (details on the DLUHC website): 1. The introduction of a new accelerated planning service which would offer a new application route with accelerated decision dates for major commercial applications and fee refunds wherever these are not met. 2. Changes in relation to extensions of time agreements, including a new performance measure for speed of decisionmaking against statutory time limits and an end to the use of extension of time agreements for householder applications and repeat agreements for the same application for other types of application. 3. An expansion of the current simplified householder and minor commercial appeal service to more written representation appeals. 4. Details on the broadening of the ability to vary a planning permission through section 73B applications and on the treatment of overlapping planning permissions. Fixtures or fittings The offer for sale of stained glass roundels from a listed building has been reported. The 16th-century stained glass, associated with Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, was put on sale at auction by the owners of a Dorset manor, Grade I-listed Sandford Orcas. It was withdrawn from sale following a visit by Historic England because listed building consent had not been obtained for its removal. Section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides that a ‘listed building’ includes any object or structure fixed to the building. This means that listed building consent may be required for its removal. The auctioneers handling the sale have said the stained glass roundels were suspended from wires, so were not ‘fittings’. Case law has always relied on two tests of whether objects are considered fixtures or fittings. First, what is the degree of annexation of the object: is it firmly fixed to the building or can it be easily removed? Second, what is the purpose of annexation? Is wit the for the better enjoyment of the object itself, or to improve the building or make it more beautiful? Removing an object from a listed building without consent could result in a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine and, in the most serious cases, imprisonment. The local council could use its powers to require an object to be returned to the building (see Dill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another [2020] UKSC 20). Relevant case law is at Idlicote House Urns Supreme Court v3 Legal Panel GN2020_1_ v200720.pdf (ihbc.org.uk) Case law Marks and Spencer, Oxford Street: In February 2024, Judge Lieven allowed an s288 challenge and quashed the decision by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and the Community regarding the dismissal of an s78 appeal for the construction of a nine-storey, mixed office and retail store, redeveloping Marks and Spencer’s flagship store. There were six grounds of appeal. Lieven J considered that the secretary of state had failed to give adequate reasoning for disagreeing with the inspector and erred in the interpretation of policies in the National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan. See Marks and Spencer PLC v SOSLUH&C & Others [2024] EWHC 452. Stonehenge: The High Court has dismissed another legal challenge brought by campaigners opposing the government’s plans to build a tunnel near Stonehenge, a world heritage site. The proposed A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme has been the subject of both political and legal challenges. Historic England has been focusing on the heritage issues and the importance of the world heritage site. The government argues that the proposed improvements will restore the internationally important landscape by creating a longer tunnel than in previously granted schemes. There is concern that the UK could lose another world heritage site as a consequence of the proposals. On 5 April 2024, Save Stonehenge applied for leave for appeal but National Highways appeared to have begun preparatory works. See Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited and Andrew Rhind-Tutt v Secretary of State for Transport Defendant and (1) National Highways Limited (2) Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (‘Historic England’) [2024] Ewhc 339 (Admin).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=