vides that a building in a conservation area shall not be demolished without the consent of the appropriate authority, and subsection (3) provides that various sections in Part I of the Act have effect in relation to buildings in conservation areas as they have effect in relation to listed buildings. I do not think that there is any inconsistency, so long as it is appreciated that a listed building can consist of a part of a building. "Buildings in a conservation area are put on the same footing as buildings of special architectural or historic interest, oranypartofabuildingwhich has that character, which is for the time being included in the list. In the context of section 74(1), subject to any exceptions or modifications in this regard which may have been prescribed under subsection (3) qf that section, the reference to the demolition of a building in a conservation area must be taken to mean the removal of the whole building, in the same way as section 1 7(3) appears to contemplate works to a listed building which will produce a sitefor redevelopment". He also went on to consider the advice of the Secretary of State in what is now para 4.28 of PPG 15, which states: "Section 336 of the principal Act states that a building includes "any part of a building". The demolition of part of a building should therefore be regarded asfalling within the scope of conservation area controt'. He commented (at p 187F) as follows: "Itfollows from what I have said that the advice in that paragraph will require to be re-considered. Subject to such exceptions or modifications as may have been prescribed by regulations under section 74(3), it will no longer be correct to say that, because of the definition of 'building' in the principal Act, the demolition of part of a building in a conservation area should be r,egarded asfalling within the scope of conservation area control. In the context of section 74 of the Act, which requires to be read together with the legislation relating to listed buildings in Part I of that Act, the reference to demolition of a building means the demolition of a whole building. But advice can still be given to the effect that the question what constitutes the demolition of the whole building is a question offact and degree which will need to be decided on the/acts of each case." It is arguable that these last observations are strictly obiter(that is, not forming a necessary step in the Context 54 June1997 Court's reasoning, and thus not constituting a binding precedent), since the case actually before the House was not one arising under the legislation relating to conservation areas. However, Lord Hope had earlier in his speech specifically considered the conservation area code in order to ensure that his interpretation of the legislation did not have undesirable or unworkable implications. In any event, it follows irresistibly from the way in which section 74 is worded that the observations of Lord Hope on conse1vation area control are correct. The conclusion is thus simple: conservation area consent will only be needed for the carrying out of works in a conse1vation area provided that they are, as a matter of fact, carried out on such a scale as to amount to "demolition" of a whole building. This would include, for example, the removal of an entire building leaving only the facade, or the removal of an entire front garden wall. But it would not include the removal of a single window, or a whole shop front; not the removal of one wall of a building, prior to adding on an extension; not the removal of a porch, or the knocking a hole in a wall; nor the removal of architectural details such as finials, gate-piers and so on. Those would all be "alterations", which might or might not require planning permission. There is in practice a whole range of minor operations which do not require specific planning permission, because they are permitted automatically by the General Permitted Development Order 1995 - particularly in the context of dwellinghouses. It has always been thought until now that these constituted or included "demolition", and thus required conservation area consent. Well, thanks to Lord Hope, now we know better. They do not. This largely settles the debate as to what is the distinction between "alteration" and "demolition". It means that R v North Herifordshire DC, exp Sullivan (1981] JPL 752 was wrongly decided; and that all of the text books (including mine') are wrong on this point. This new interpretation has already been accepted, no doubt reluctantly, by a number of planning authorities. Other consequences As noted above, listed building consent applications need to be submitted for both demolition and alteration. However, whereas all demolition requires consent, a proposal for "alteration or extension" only requires consent if it affects the character of the building. Now that many more minor proposals will be classified as "alteration", it may be possible to argue in some cases that they will not affect the character of the building (as a whole), and will thus not require consent. Further, only proposals for demolition need to be referred by the local planning authority for comment to the national amenity societies. It used to be considered that this included many proposals for the removal of parts of buildings, and the loss of architectural features (including, in some cases, interiors); also most extensions and alterations, on the grounds that they included at least some demolition. Shimizu makes it clear that such proposals, involving only relatively minor demolitions, will not need to be notified - which will doubtless cause apoplexy in the conservation lobby. Thirdly, in considering any proposal for works to a listed building, planning authorities are to have regard to the desirability of preserving "the listed building" or its setting or its special features. This now means the listed building, considered as a whole, and not merely the part that is directly affected by the proposal. A proposal that affects only a part may thus be treated more favourably, if its impact on the whole building is not major. Further guidance on all of these procedural matters will be required from central Government, in the form of a revised set of directions that were to have been included in PPG 15, to replace those in Circ 8/87 (which are of course still in force). The final (!) draft of those directions, and accompanying circular, appeared for comment on the same day as the judgment of the Lords in Shimizu; so it will all have had to go back to the drawing board. Still, the word is that revised directions are going to be placed before ministers immediately after the election, together with a Circular sorting out the mess, and amending PPG 15. Ideally, this should also amend the corresponding provisions in Welsh Office Circ 61/96; but that may be too much to hope for. So the new guidance may have been issued before this article appears in print. Or maybe not . . . Don't hold your.breath. Tbis article is based (by kind permission of the editor) on one which appeared in Solicitors Journal, published by FT Law & Tax, which also publishes Charles Mynors's book Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, the second edition of which is still available. 39
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=