Planning Appeal Decision – The Carlton Tavern London
A recent planning appeal decision dismissing an application for retrospective planning permission and supporting a council's enforcement notice requiring a replica reconstruction of a public house, following unauthorised demolition, highlights the risk and costs a developer runs should they choose to demolish a building prior to obtaining planning permission.
The planning appeal references for the case are APP/X5990/C/15/3130605 (relating to the appeal against the enforcement notice and application for retrospective planning permission for the demolition of the public house) & APP/X5990/W/15/3025122. The case concerned The Carlton Tavern in London for which the City of Westminster Council is the local planning authority.
It was common ground at the appeal that the demolition of the public house was unauthorised as prior approval for demolition was not sought as required by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015. It was also accepted that at the time of demolition Heritage England was actively going through the process of considering whether to recommend its listing.
There were a number of grounds and issues to be considered at the appeal. These were:
- Whether the enforcement notice was imprecise or unreasonable? The inspector found that the notice was precise and reasonable noting that replica reconstruction will be in reference to the information and evidence available;
- Should retrospective permission be granted for demolition? Retrospective permission was refused. The inspector stated it was necessary to consider the reality of the situation and therefore the value of the building if reconstructed should be considered (as the planning regime is not intended as a system for punishment). He concluded that it was highly likely that the building would have been listed. Therefore, a reconstructed replica building would provide a substantial amount of evidence about the historically important public house and its features, and for which he attached considerable planning weight;
- Was reconstruction reasonably necessary to remedy the breach and injury to the amenity? The inspector found that the notice was direct to the unauthorised demolition and therefore it was so reasonably necessary;
- The period for reconstruction? The council has originally required 18 months. The inspector found 24 months reasonable and amended the notice accordingly; and
- Should permission be granted for a new building (s78 appeal)? In dismissing this appeal, the inspector found that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and as such it was not sustainable development.
Lessons: This case highlights the considerable risk arising from starting demolition of a building (especially one considered for listing by English Heritage) before authorised pursuant to the planning law. The building may be required to be reconstructed as a replica at considerable cost and the enforcement notice would remain on the property.
