The owner of a fire-damaged listed house in Cheadle must rebuild walls demolished without consent, but Stockport Council cannot use its enforcement notice to demand the return of interiors already destroyed before the building was listed.
An Inspector has upheld the notice against Belmont House on Schools Hill while stripping out requirements for a much more extensive reconstruction. The owner still has 18 months to comply.
The decision turns on a stark sequence: serious fires in July 2021, Grade II listing days later, then further demolition in March 2022. Stockport could require that demolition to be reversed. It could not use the same notice to restore the house to its pre-fire condition.
Fire first, listing next, demolition later
The late eighteenth-century house suffered serious fires in July 2021. It was added to the statutory list at Grade II on 28th July 2021, by which time fire had already damaged its roof, floors and interior.
A structural inspection on 4th August, recorded in a Civic Engineers appraisal dated 11th August 2021, documented what remained. Much of the external wall structure was still standing, although the loss of floors and roof had removed vital restraint. The evidence indicated that appropriate support could then have retained much of it.
The later demolition left far less standing. Stockport said an officer visiting on 15th March 2022 found that the building had been demolished apart from the front wall and a depth of approximately four metres. Rubble, building material and plant were on the site.
The council initially pursued an injunction requiring the then owner to seek permission and listed building consent for rebuilding. Both approvals followed in March 2024, but the developers entered receivership in February 2025 and could not comply with the consent order binding them.
Stockport then served the listed building enforcement notice on 4th June 2025. Daniel Richardson of CG Recovery Limited appealed as receiver for Belmont Estates (Manchester) Ltd. Although the property had since been sold, the Inspector found that the appeal could continue because the required interest in the land existed when it was made.
A listed house rebuild, not a pre-fire restoration
Stockport’s notice contained six requirements. They included retaining the remaining fabric, reconstructing the building in accordance with later approved drawings, replicating historic internal and external features, and reusing material identified in a salvage schedule.
Inspector Richard S Jones accepted that rebuilding could be required. But the council’s chosen benchmark went beyond putting right the breach alleged in the notice.
The August 2021 appraisal described roof and floor timbers which had either perished or been badly charred. Even before the fires, missing lead and flashings had allowed water into the house. A description of the intact building could not establish what actually survived when it received protection.
The salvage requirements presented a further problem. The appellant said some scheduled materials had been disposed of. Jones found that many listed items were internal features unlikely to have survived to the relevant date, while much of the material was categorised as unusable. For external items, the evidence did not establish which had formed part of the building before demolition.
The later listed building consent did not solve that difficulty. It was granted on 15th March 2024, after the demolition, so it could not be treated as a consent which the demolition works had failed to follow. The notice’s reference to 2023 was also wrong, although that drafting error did not itself invalidate the notice.
The August evidence becomes decisive
Jones replaced the detailed restoration demands with two requirements: retain and appropriately support the surviving building, and rebuild to the condition evidenced by the August 2021 structural appraisal and photographs.
“Rebuild and restore the Building to its condition before the demolition works were carried out”
The appraisal and photographs now define what must be restored. In practical terms, Jones described the reduced task as rebuilding the demolished walls rather than completing the later, more elaborate reconstruction scheme.
The surviving structure must still be retained. A July 2025 inspection had questioned the effectiveness of some scaffolding and recommended further controlled dismantling on safety grounds. Jones would not vary the notice to authorise more demolition.
Instead, the revised requirement allows appropriate temporary support measures, rather than insisting that the existing scaffolding remain unchanged. That gives the owner scope to address engineering deficiencies without removing the duty to protect what is left of the listed house.
Notice survives, extra time refused
The appellant initially sought 24 months to carry out the work, later increasing the request to at least 36 months. Jones refused an extension because the rebuilding task was now substantially smaller and would not depend on implementing the later consent and discharging its conditions.
The listed house had also been transferred to its new owners more than a year earlier. The Inspector considered that they had had sufficient opportunity to understand the site and the notice’s requirements.
The formal outcome on 24th September 2026 was that the appeal was dismissed and the notice upheld as varied. The challenge to the extent of the work succeeded in part; the challenge to the compliance period failed.
For the listed house, the result is a narrower but enforceable rebuilding requirement. Stockport’s listed building enforcement action survives, with the August 2021 evidence setting the limit of the restoration it can secure through this notice.
Sources: Belmont House appeal decision 3368653, including the varied requirements; Historic England’s Belmont listing entry.
0 Comments