Save Britain`s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry and Others
Save Britain`s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry and Others
- 1991
- Weekly Law Reports (1991) 1 WLR 153-172(20) .
HL 28 February 1991. HL reversed CA decision (Abstract 43728) allowing a listed building to be replaced on grounds of architectural merit. The owners Number 1 Poultry proposed a redevelopment of eight Grade II listed buildings in a designated conservation area in the City of London and their replacement by a single modern building. Local planning authority refused application for planning permission . On hearing N`s appeal, the SOS after accepting his Inspector`s recommendations that the architectural merits of the proposed replacement, decided to over-ride his stated policy set out in DOE Circular 8/87 . Judge dismissed an objector`s application under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s245 that the SOS had failed to give sufficient reasons for his decision as required under Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988 17(1) . Save Britain`s Heritage (S) appealed to CA. CA quashed the SOS`s decision. N appealed to HL. HL allowed the appeal. It was held that their repla
DEMOLITION
PALUMBO
HL 28 February 1991. HL reversed CA decision (Abstract 43728) allowing a listed building to be replaced on grounds of architectural merit. The owners Number 1 Poultry proposed a redevelopment of eight Grade II listed buildings in a designated conservation area in the City of London and their replacement by a single modern building. Local planning authority refused application for planning permission . On hearing N`s appeal, the SOS after accepting his Inspector`s recommendations that the architectural merits of the proposed replacement, decided to over-ride his stated policy set out in DOE Circular 8/87 . Judge dismissed an objector`s application under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s245 that the SOS had failed to give sufficient reasons for his decision as required under Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988 17(1) . Save Britain`s Heritage (S) appealed to CA. CA quashed the SOS`s decision. N appealed to HL. HL allowed the appeal. It was held that their repla
DEMOLITION
PALUMBO