Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council [1997] UKHL 3
The point in plain English: Removing part of a listed building is not automatically the demolition of the listed building. The works must be looked at in the context of the listed building as a whole, and the distinction between demolition and alteration is ultimately one of fact and degree.
What the House of Lords decided
The case concerned the proposed removal of internal chimney breasts from a listed building after much of the surrounding redevelopment had already taken place. The legal issue arose under a former compensation provision, but deciding it required the House to examine what “demolition” of a listed building meant.
The majority held that the proposed removal of the chimney breasts could properly be treated as alteration of the listed building rather than demolition. In this statutory context, demolition meant destruction of the listed building as a whole or works so extensive that, in practical terms, the listed building was being cleared away for redevelopment. Removing parts can instead amount to alteration of the whole.
Important current-law warning
The compensation provision at the centre of the dispute, former section 27 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, was repealed and is no longer the present law. The wider interpretation of demolition and alteration remains important when applying listed-building control.
See Planning Geek’s guides to listed building consent and listed buildings.
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.