Council successfully defends decision that proposed demolition of old school was within permitted development rights

The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge by conservation body Save Britain's Heritage (SBH) over Herefordshire Council’s decision that the proposed demolition of an old school was within permitted development rights.

SBH, which gained permission in July to bring the case, argued that the council erred in its interpretation and application of paragraph B.1(a) of Class B, Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and so its decision in relation to the Old School, in Garway, was unlawful.

It additionally argued that Herefordshire failed to provide an adequate and intelligible record of the decision and its reasons, as required by the Openness of Local Government Regulations 2014, instead producing contradictory decisions with inconsistent reasons and dates.

An officer’s report in March this year said the building was “an attractive Victorian stone built, former school house…it is unlisted but is certainly of sufficient architectural quality to be considered a non-designated heritage asset”.

The building is thought to have been vacated in 1997 since when it has been boarded up.

In Save Britain's Heritage, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire County Council [2022] EWHC 2984 (Admin) Mrs Justice Lang said: “If the court were to find in these proceedings that the council had erred in deciding that the proposed demolition was permitted development and proceeded to quash the grant of prior approval, the council could then be ordered to re-consider its decision, in accordance with the judgment of the court.

“If it reversed its previous view, and decided that the proposed demolition was not permitted development, it could (if necessary), take action against [owner] Mr Davies to prevent the demolition by enforcement proceedings and/or an application for an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”

This meant the claim was not academic and could be a case in which there was an exceptional public interest, so the requirements of section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 should be disregarded.

Lang J said it was not unlawful for the officer to take into account that the building was in a "good structural condition" in deciding that it was neither unsafe nor uninhabitable and other findings about it were reasoned ones to have reached.

She said the second ground failed because the council was not required to give further reasons to explain the dates on which documents were issued and the reasons for any delays in issuing documents. Nor was it required to give reasons for the contradictions between two documents involved in the case.

“The duty to give reasons only exists in respect of a decision,” the judge said. “These matters were not decisions.”

She dismissed both grounds and added that the Senior Courts Act 1981 did apply.

Mark Smulian