Dill: when a listed object is a building
Dill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Stratford-on-Avon District Council [2020] UKSC 20 concerned two ornamental lead urns on stone piers.
The Supreme Court held that their inclusion in the statutory list did not, by itself, settle whether they were buildings. However, it did not finally decide that they were not buildings. That question had to be reconsidered through the appeal process.
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
- [2020] UKSC 20
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- Judgment date
- 20th May 2020
- Judge
- Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin and Lord Sales
The dispute over the urns and piers
The objects had moved between several properties before being placed at Idlicote House in 1973. They were separately listed in 1986. Mr Dill subsequently sold them without knowing of that listing.
The council refused retrospective listed building consent and issued a listed building enforcement notice requiring reinstatement. The inspector treated listing as conclusive of their status as buildings and would not reconsider that question.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach. A ‘listed building’ must be both a building and included in the list. Mere inclusion could not conclusively supply the first requirement.
The building question could be raised on appeal
The Court held that the issue could be considered in the listed-building enforcement appeal. If the objects were not buildings, the alleged works would not constitute the contravention on which that enforcement action depended.
This was not simply an attempt to reassess artistic importance. It concerned whether the objects fell within the legislation at all.
The Court examined the particular statutory route, including the relationship with the principles in Wicks. It did not announce that every aspect of a listing may be challenged in any proceedings at any time.
Separate listing and the extended definition are different
An object may be listed as a building in its own right. Alternatively, an object or structure may be protected because the statutory extended definition treats it as part of an existing listed building.
For the latter route, questions about fixtures, annexation and forming part of the land matter. The Court discussed Debenhams and the property-law meaning of something being fixed to a building.
Those questions should not be confused with whether an object independently satisfies the planning definition of a building. Nor is being in the setting of a listed building the same thing as being protected as part of it.
The Skerritts factors apply to the building question
The Supreme Court confirmed the relevance of size, permanence and degree of physical attachment when deciding whether something is a building for separate listing purposes.
These are evaluative factors, not a mechanical checklist in which the absence of one answer always determines the result. The method of installation and removal can be important.
The Court traced the approach through Skerritts, Barvis and Cardiff Rating Authority. It also stressed that artistic or historical interest alone does not turn every object into a building.
Why the outcome must not be overstated
There were arguments in both directions about the urns and piers. The Court did not have the full factual material needed for a final conclusion and considered that the evaluation was better undertaken by an inspector.
The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted. The Court’s concerns about the guidance and the fairness of pursuing enforcement were not a final ruling that ordinary garden ornaments can never be listed buildings.
For a live case, identify the precise route by which protection is asserted, then apply the appropriate test to the particular object and its relationship with the land or building.
Read the Dill judgment
Gold Members can read the complete Supreme Court judgment in the protected library.
Dill Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026