Dill v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Dill v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector was correct in law to treat the statutory listing as conclusive and not to go behind it; the items were properly listed as buildings under the statutory definition; property law concepts were irrelevant; the Inspector's approach to the merits of listing and the refusal of listed building consent was lawful; any error regarding the application form was immaterial; and there was no procedural unfairness.

Parties
Claimant: Marcus Dill; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application and appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review, Heritage Protection, Enforcement Notices
Planning Law Administrative Law Listed Buildings Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review Heritage Protection Enforcement Notices

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marcus Dill

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

Stratford-on-Avon District Council

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector could go behind the statutory listing of the items as buildings
  2. 2 Whether the items were 'buildings' within the meaning of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  3. 3 Whether property law concepts (chattels/fixtures) were relevant to the definition of 'building'

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was correct in law to treat the statutory listing as conclusive and not to go behind it; the items were properly listed as buildings under the statutory definition; property law concepts were irrelevant; the Inspector's approach to the merits of listing and the refusal of listed building consent was lawful; any error regarding the application form was immaterial; and there was no procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Application and appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 refused
  • Appeal under section 65 of the same Act dismissed