Key Facts
- •Claimant owns former Debenhams store and wants to demolish it for residential development.
- •Defendant (Spelthorne Borough Council) extended the Staines Conservation Area (SCA) to include the building.
- •Claimant challenges the extension, arguing it was to prevent demolition.
- •Claimant's representations during the consultation were not initially considered.
- •Defendant issued a Supplementary Report (SR) attempting to address the omission.
- •The building was not considered for national listing by Historic England.
Legal Principles
Planning reports are to be read with reasonable benevolence.
Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin)
Designation or extension of a conservation area motivated primarily to prevent demolition is unlawful.
LBCA Act Section 69
Desire to protect a building can be an impetus for conservation area designation, but not the sole impetus.
R (on the application of Arndale Properties Ltd) v Worcester City Council [2008] EWHC 678 (Admin); Metro Construction Limited v LB Barnet [2009] EWHC 2956 (Admin); Trillium (Prime) Property GP Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC [2011] EWHC 146 (Admin); R (Silus Investments S.A.) v London Borough of Hounslow [2015] EWHC 358 (Admin)
Local planning authorities have an ongoing duty to review conservation areas.
LBCA Act Section 69(2)
Courts are cautious about ex-post facto reasoning in public law challenges.
Outcomes
Judicial review succeeds on grounds 2, 3, and 4.
Defendant failed to consider claimant's representations properly; the Supplementary Report was flawed and did not represent a legally adequate response; officers' reports omitted material information.
Ground 1 (improper purpose) fails.
While the desire to prevent demolition was an impetus, it was not the sole impetus for the conservation area extension.