Save Britain’s Heritage, R (on the application of) v Herefordshire Council

Save Britain’s Heritage, R (on the application of) v Herefordshire Council

The planning officer’s decision was based on an evaluative judgment that the building was not unsafe or uninhabitable, as required by the first limb of paragraph B.1(a). Although the officer erroneously referred to intention and paraphrased the statutory test, these were not material errors. The officer’s reasoning corresponded to the statutory requirements, and the decision to grant prior approval for demolition as permitted development was lawful.

Parties
Appellant: Save Britain’s Heritage; Respondent: Herefordshire Council; Interested Party: Gerard Davies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review, Demolition of Buildings
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review Demolition of Buildings

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Save Britain’s Heritage

Appellant

Herefordshire Council

Respondent

Gerard Davies

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning officer lawfully interpreted and applied paragraph B.1(a) of Class B, Part 11, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 in granting prior approval for demolition
  2. 2 Whether the officer's reference to 'intentionally' rendering the building unsafe or uninhabitable was a material error
  3. 3 Whether the officer applied an incorrect threshold regarding works required to avoid exclusion from permitted development

Ratio Decidendi

The planning officer’s decision was based on an evaluative judgment that the building was not unsafe or uninhabitable, as required by the first limb of paragraph B.1(a). Although the officer erroneously referred to intention and paraphrased the statutory test, these were not material errors. The officer’s reasoning corresponded to the statutory requirements, and the decision to grant prior approval for demolition as permitted development was lawful.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed