Aidan Jones v Jane Margaret Mordue & Others [2015] EWCA Civ 1243
Jones v Mordue is an important Court of Appeal judgment on listed buildings, heritage weight and the reasons given for planning decisions. It confirms that the statutory duty in section 66(1) remains strong, but a decision-maker does not have to repeat a particular legal formula word for word where the decision, read fairly as a whole, shows that the correct heritage approach was applied.
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
- [2015] EWCA Civ 1243
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 3rd December 2015
- Judge
- Lord Justice Richards, Lord Justice Floyd and Lord Justice Sales
- Case number
- C1/2015/1067
What Jones v Mordue decided
The case concerned permission for a wind turbine at Poplars Farm near Wappenham in Northamptonshire. The turbine would cause some harm to the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of St Mary and more limited effects on other listed buildings.
A Planning Inspector granted permission, deciding that the heritage harm was outweighed by the renewable-energy benefits. The High Court quashed that decision because the Inspector had not expressly demonstrated in his reasons that he had given the statutory heritage duty the required considerable importance and weight.
The Court of Appeal disagreed and restored the Inspector’s decision.
Section 66 still requires considerable importance and weight
The Court of Appeal did not weaken the principle established in the earlier heritage cases. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires considerable importance and weight to be given to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting when the planning balance is carried out.
The dispute in Jones v Mordue was not whether that duty existed. It was whether the Inspector had to spell it out expressly in the decision letter in order to prove that he had complied with it.
The normal test for planning reasons still applies
Lord Justice Sales held that the normal approach to planning reasons applies in listed-building cases too. Reasons must be intelligible and adequate, and they must allow the reader to understand why the decision was reached on the principal controversial issues.
But the court should not impose an abstract drafting formula. A reasons challenge succeeds where the deficiency causes genuine substantial prejudice or leaves substantial doubt that the decision-maker has applied the law correctly.
East Northamptonshire did not reverse the burden of proof
The High Court had understood the earlier East Northamptonshire, or Barnwell Manor, judgment as requiring the decision-maker positively to demonstrate in every case that considerable importance and weight had been given to preservation.
The Court of Appeal said that read too much into the earlier judgment. In Barnwell Manor, the decision letter itself gave a positive impression that the Inspector had treated less than substantial heritage harm as merely a less than substantial objection. An express statement of the correct statutory approach would have been needed there to dispel that impression.
Jones v Mordue was different. There was no comparable indication that the Inspector had downplayed the heritage duty.
Working through the heritage policy can demonstrate compliance
The Inspector had referred to the relevant local-plan heritage policy and to the national heritage policy dealing with less than substantial harm. The Court of Appeal treated those references as strong evidence that he understood and applied the statutory duty.
An expert planning Inspector who works through the relevant heritage policy correctly will normally be taken to understand the associated statutory framework, unless something in the decision positively points the other way.
This does not mean section 66 can be ignored. It means the court reads the decision in a practical and fair way rather than demanding a ritual quotation of the statute.
Heritage harm can still be outweighed
The Inspector found less than substantial harm to the setting of the Church of St Mary and negligible harm to other heritage assets. He then weighed that harm, with the statutory importance due to preservation, against the renewable-energy benefits.
The Court of Appeal held that this was a lawful planning judgment. The statutory duty gives preservation special weight, but it does not create an absolute rule that any heritage harm requires refusal.
Jones v Mordue and Barnwell Manor should be read together
The two cases answer different questions. Barnwell Manor establishes the considerable importance and weight required by section 66. Jones v Mordue explains how a court decides, from the reasons given, whether that duty has actually been applied.
There is therefore no contradiction between them.
Read the full Jones v Mordue judgment
The approved Court of Appeal judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
For the substantive heritage duty, see listed buildings and heritage significance and harm. Our setting of a heritage asset page explains the wider setting assessment.
Jones v Mordue Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026