Barton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 573 (Admin)
The point in plain English: Removing only part of a wall or gate can still amount to demolition for planning purposes. The decision-maker is entitled to look at the part actually removed rather than assuming the works must be judged only against the structure as a whole.
What happened
The case concerned a pedestrian gate, lintel and about 2.5 metres of stonework forming part of a much longer wall in the Bath Conservation Area. The works were carried out to create access for a proposed dwelling.
An enforcement notice alleged unauthorised demolition. The Inspector upheld the notice, finding that the removal amounted to demolition rather than merely alteration.
What the High Court decided
HHJ Jarman QC held that the statutory definition of a building includes part of a building or structure. The Inspector had therefore been entitled to focus on the portion of the wall and gate that had actually been removed. Whether works amount to alteration or demolition is ultimately a matter of fact and degree.
The appeal was dismissed.
Why Barton matters
The case is particularly useful where apparently modest works involve taking out a discrete section of wall, gate or other structure in a conservation area. Calling the wider project an alteration does not prevent the removed element itself from amounting to demolition.
See our guide to demolition in a conservation area for the current rules.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.