Out-Law News 2 min. read

High Court quashes Hounslow conservation area designation due to inadequate consultation


The High Court has ruled that the decision of a London council to designate the area around a demolition-threatened pub as a conservation area should be quashed, after deciding that the consultation held by the council did not meet the minimum standards required by law.

Silus Investments S.A., the owner of the Packhouse & Talbot pub on Chiswick High Road in west London, applied to Hounslow Council last August to determine whether prior approval would be required for its proposed demolition of the pub to allow for redevelopment.

Following the receipt of the owner's application, the Council notified certain local groups, excluding the owner of the pub, that it proposed to create a conservation area on Chiswick High Road, which had previously been identified as an "area of special character". Two days into a seven-day consultation on the proposal, the leader of the Council made the decision to designate the conservation area. The Council then wrote to the owner informing it that the proposed demolition was "not lawful", because it constituted the "demolition of an unlisted … building in a conservation area".

The owner applied for a judicial review of the decision to designate the conservation area, claiming that the designation was for an improper purpose, namely to prevent the pub from being demolished. In a decision dated 19 February, High Court judge Mrs Justice Lang disagreed that the purpose of the designation had been improper.

The judge explained that, under English law, "a desire to protect an unlisted building from demolition cannot justify a conservation area designation, but the existence of a particular building may contribute to the proposed area and a threat of demolition may prompt the taking of a decision whether to designate".

Mrs Justice Lang noted that the Council had considered the designation of the Chiswick High Road as a conservation area for many years prior to the decision. The judge was satisfied that, while the threat to the Council was "spurred into action in August 2014 by the threat of demolition" of the pub, the risk to the pub "was not the reason for the designation".

However, the judge agreed with the owner that the consultation held by the Council prior to its decision had been inadequate and had resulted in unfairness. Mrs Justice Lang noted that the Council was not obliged by law to consult on its proposal, but once it had decided to hold a consultation it was required to "comply with the minimum standards of a lawful consultation procedure".

The Council's consultation notice had not included sufficient reasons for the designation to allow those consulted to properly consider and respond to the plans, the judge said, and the seven-day consultation period, "during a period of the year when many people were away", and "when there had been no advance warning of the proposal", was too short.

The leader of the Council had been asked to take the decision to designate only two days into the consultation period, due to a mistaken belief that he would be unavailable the following week.  Mrs Justice Lang found that curtailing the consultation period without informing anyone "could not be justified" and meant "the product of the consultation was not 'conscientiously taken into account' when the decision was made", as required by law.

Mrs Justice Lang also agreed with the owner that a planning officer's report to the leader of the Council, recommending designation, had been misleading. Before making the decision to designate the area, the leader of the Council should have been informed that the owner and other local landowners had not been directly consulted on the proposal; that the last formal consultation had been eight years earlier; and that the seven-day consultation had not yet concluded, the judge said.

The judge decided that the Council's decision should be quashed, but noted that the owner had agreed not to proceed with the demolition of the pub for six months following the quashing order.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.