Future High Street Living (Staines) Limited v Spelthorne Borough Council

28 March 2023

[2023] EWHC 688 (Admin)

High Court

A company wanted to knock down an old Debenhams store. The council stopped them by adding the building to a protected area. The court said the council didn't listen properly to the company's complaints and made a mistake, so they have to redo their decision.

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.

Future High Street Living (Staines) Limited v Spelthorne Borough Council

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Geoffrey Simmonds, R (on the application of Geoffrey Simmonds) v Blaby District Council & Ors

Glenn Kinnersley, R (on the application of) v Maidstone Borough Council

Tesco Stores Limited, R (on the application of) v Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

Carol Gurajena & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham

Krystyna Knight, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Harrow