Debenhams: fixtures and listed-building protection
Debenhams plc v Westminster City Council [1987] AC 396 explains why a separate building does not automatically become part of a listed building simply because the two are physically connected.
The House of Lords considered a former shop connected to premises across the street by a footbridge and tunnel. The decision is important for extended listed-building protection, although the proceedings themselves concerned empty rates.
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.
- Neutral citation
- [1987] AC 396
- Court
- House of Lords
- Judgment date
- 4th December 1986
- Judge
- Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Ackner
Two connected parts of Hamley’s former premises
The listed premises at 200–202 Regent Street extended back to Kingly Street. Another historically independent building at 27–28 Kingly Street stood on the opposite side of the road. The buildings had been used together as Hamley’s toy shop.
Debenhams argued that the second building was protected through the extended listed-building definition and that the whole rating unit therefore qualified for exemption from empty rates.
The House of Lords allowed the council’s appeal by a majority of four to one. The independent Kingly Street building was not treated as part of the listed building, and the claimed exemption was unavailable.
Common occupation is not enough
Lord Keith explained the relationship between a principal building and an accessory or genuinely ancillary structure. Making one building subordinate to another for the convenience of a particular business did not necessarily establish that relationship for listing purposes.
A physical link could not automatically bring every connected building within the listing. Otherwise, listing one building in a terrace could have implausibly wide consequences for neighbouring properties.
The judgment distinguished an independent building from an extension which genuinely forms part of the listed building. It is not authority that extensions or attached structures are never protected.
The importance of the law of fixtures
Lord Mackay considered the meaning of something being fixed to a building. He explained the relevance of the property-law concept of a fixture, rather than treating any structural connection as sufficient.
This reasoning is discussed in Dill. That later case also explains why the test for an object listed as a building in its own right must be distinguished from protection as part of another listed building.
Calderdale and the dissent need careful treatment
The majority criticised the breadth of the reasoning in Attorney-General ex rel Sutcliffe v Calderdale, while recognising that its result could be supported by the particular relationship between the mill and cottages.
Lord Ackner would have dismissed the council’s appeal. His broader reading of the legislation is a dissent, not the majority holding.
For current advice, identify the actual listed building, the character and history of the other structure, and the relevant statutory route. The historic rating provisions in Debenhams should not be used as a current business-rates guide.
Read the Debenhams judgment
Gold Members can read the complete judgment, including the dissent and final order. It was delivered on 4th December 1986 and reported in 1987.
Debenhams Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026