Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Supreme Court case Dill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] UKSC 20 concerns whether two 18th-century lead urns, each resting on a limestone pedestal, qualify as 'buildings' under the Listed Buildings Act 1990. The urns were listed as buildings in 1986, but the appellant, Mr. Dill, removed and sold them in 2009. The local planning authority issued an enforcement notice requiring reinstatement, leading to an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the listing as a 'building' is not conclusive for determining whether something qualifies as a 'building' under the Act, and that the Skerritts criteria (size, permanence, and degree of physical attachment) are relevant for determining whether garden structures qualify as 'buildings'.
Issues
- The court examined the criteria relevant to determining whether an item appearing in its own right on a statutory list qualifies as a 'building' under the Listed Buildings Act, specifically whether concepts of property law (annexation) or the Skerritts test (size, permanence, degree of annexation) should be applied.
- The court addressed whether a planning inspector considering an appeal under section 20 or 39 of the Listed Buildings Act has the authority to determine whether an item on the list qualifies as a 'building', or if the listing itself conclusively establishes the item's status as a listed building.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court affirms that the Skerritts criteria for identifying a 'building' are relevant in the listed building context, but does not reach a conclusion on their application to the specific case.
- The Supreme Court allows the appeal on the first issue, determining that designation as a listed building is not conclusive. The enforcement appeal must be remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination.
Remedies
The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal on the first issue, ruling that the status of the item as a building is not conclusive and that the issue could be challenged in the appeal process. The Court ordered the enforcement appeal to be remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination, noting that the matter involves questions of factual evaluation best dealt with by a planning inspector in the context of a renewed appeal.
Legal Principles
- The court distinguished between property law concepts (fixtures vs. chattels) relevant to the extended definition of 'building' for curtilage structures, and the basic statutory definition of 'building' for items listed in their own right, which should not be determined by property law concepts.
- The court applied the rule of law principle that individuals affected by legal measures should have a fair opportunity to challenge these measures and vindicate their rights in court proceedings, reflecting the European Convention on Human Rights article 6.
Precedent Name
- Barvis Lid v Secretary of State for the Environment
- Boddington v British Transport Police
- Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin's Iron and Steel Co Ltd
- R v Wicks
- Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Cited Statute
- Listed Buildings Act 1990
- Town and Country Planning Act 1968
Judge Name
- Lord Sales
- Lady Arden
- Lord Kitchin
- Lord Carnwath
- Lord Wilson
Passage Text
- Skerritts provides clear authority at Court of Appeal level for the three-fold test, albeit imprecise, of size, permanence and degree of physical attachment. No preferable alternative has been suggested in this court.
- If it is not in truth a building at all, there is nothing to say that mere inclusion in the list will make it so.