Grounds - LB/CA Enforcement Appeals

You should choose at least one of the following Grounds for your appeal.  You will need to provide facts in support of all the grounds that you select.

Ground (a): That the building is not of special architectural or historic interest.  That is to say that although the building is listed, it is not outstanding and worthy of preservation. This ground, in effect, invites the Secretary of State to remove the building from the statutory list. In the case of a conservation area enforcement notice, ground (a) reads “that retention of the building is not necessary in the interests of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area in which it is situated”; (see SI 1990 No 1519 reg 12 and Schedule 3).

Ground (b): That the matters alleged to constitute a contravention of section 9(1) or (2) have not occurred.  That what is alleged in the notice has not taken place as a matter of fact.

Ground (c): That those matters (if they occurred) do not constitute such a contravention.  This ground argues that listed building consent is not needed – for example, because the works do not affect the character of the listed building, or because the works concern a building which is not part of a listed building.

Ground (d): That works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building, that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the case may be, the preservation of the building by works of repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter, and that the works carried out were limited to the minimum measures immediately necessary.  All 3 tests must be met. It may be argued here, for example, that the works in question were urgently necessary because parts of the building were unsafe.

Ground (e): That listed building consent ought to be granted for the works, or that any relevant condition of such consent which has been granted ought to be discharged, or different conditions substituted.  This ground covers any arguments on the merits of the case.

Ground (f): That copies of the notice were not served as required by section 38(4). This is the same as ground (e) in a section 174 enforcement appeal - Section 174(2)(e) says “that copies of the enforcement notice were not served as required by section 172”.

Ground (g): Except in relation to such a requirement as is mentioned in section 38(2)(b) or (c), that the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary for restoring the building to its condition before the works were carried out. An appeal on this ground will claim that the steps said to be required for restoring the building to its former state are excessive.  If you choose this ground you cannot also choose (i), (j) or (k)

Ground (h): That the period specified in the notice as the period within which any step required by the notice is to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.  This refers to the compliance period stated in the notice. If you claim that it is too short, please state what you consider to be a reasonable period for compliance.

Ground (i): That the steps required by the notice for the purpose of restoring the character of the building to its former state would not serve that purpose.  An appeal on this ground would claim that the steps required by the notice would not restore the character of the building to its former state. This is different from an appeal on ground (g) which would claim that the steps required are excessive. This ground of appeal is not available for appeals against conservation area enforcement notices alleging the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area.  If you choose this ground you cannot also choose (g), (j) or (k)

Ground (j): That steps required to be taken by virtue of section 38(2)(b) exceed what is necessary to alleviate the effect of the works executed to the building.  Where restoration of the building to itsformer state has not been required, the works required go beyond what is necessary to alleviate the effect of the works done. Section 38(2)(b) enables an authority which considers that restoration of the building to its former state would not be reasonably practicable or would be undesirable, to specify steps “for executing such further works specified in the notice as they consider necessary to alleviate the effect of the works which were carried out without listed building consent”.  Please state how the requirements should be varied.  If you choose this ground you cannot also choose (g), (i) or (k)

Ground (k): That steps required to be taken by virtue of section 38(2)(c) exceed what is necessary to bring the building to the state in which it would have been if the terms and conditions of the listed building consent had been complied with.  As above, but relating to cases involving a breach of condition attached to a grant of listed building consent. Section 38(2)(c) enables an authority to specify steps “for bringing the building to the state in which it would have been if the terms and conditions of any listed building consent which had been granted for the works had been complied with”.  If you choose this ground you cannot also choose (g), (i) or (j)