Metro Construction Ltd. v London Borough of Barnet

Metro Construction Ltd. v London Borough of Barnet

The designation of the site as a conservation area was unlawful because its true purpose was solely to prevent demolition of the unlisted monastery building, not to preserve or enhance an area of special architectural or historic interest; the site did not independently qualify as a conservation area under the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Metro Construction Limited; Defendant: London Borough of Barnet
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; designation quashed.
Legal Topics
Conservation Area Designation, Judicial Review, Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Local Authority Powers, Heritage Protection
Administrative Law Planning Law Conservation Area Designation Judicial Review Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Local Authority Powers Heritage Protection

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metro Construction Limited

Claimant

London Borough of Barnet

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the designation of 119 Bridge Lane as a Conservation Area was lawful under s.69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the designation was improperly motivated solely to prevent demolition of an unlisted building
  3. 3 Whether the area designated met the statutory criteria for a conservation area

Ratio Decidendi

The designation of the site as a conservation area was unlawful because its true purpose was solely to prevent demolition of the unlisted monastery building, not to preserve or enhance an area of special architectural or historic interest; the site did not independently qualify as a conservation area under the statutory criteria.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; designation quashed.

Orders

  • The designation of 119 Bridge Lane as a Conservation Area is quashed.