Introduction

Dill v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another ([2020] UKSC 20) is a landmark judgment delivered by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in 2020. The case addresses critical questions pertaining to the categorization of certain historical garden structures under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Listed Buildings Act). The central dispute revolves around the correct interpretation and application of what constitutes a "building" for the purposes of heritage protection, particularly concerning movable or free-standing garden structures.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, Marcus Dill, contested the classification of two early 18th-century lead urns (finials), attributed to the Flemish sculptor John van Nost, as "buildings" under the Listed Buildings Act. These urns, originally part of the historical gardens at Wrest Park and subsequently relocated multiple times, were listed in 1986. Mr. Dill removed them in 2009 and sold them at auction, prompting legal action by the local planning authority for unauthorized removal of listed structures.

The lower courts had upheld the status of the urns as buildings, dismissing Mr. Dill's appeals. However, the Supreme Court revisited the issue, primarily focusing on whether an inspector can determine if an item on the list is a building and what criteria should be applied to such determinations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases that have shaped the legal landscape regarding the definition of "building" and the status of fixtures under property law. Notable among these are:

• Corthorn Land and Timber Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1966): Established that objects fixed and annexed to a building are treated as part of it.
• Berkley v Poulett (1977): Introduced the three-fold "Skerritts test" considering size, permanence, and physical attachment to determine if an object qualifies as a building.
• Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (No 2) (2000): Applied the Skerritts test to a marquee structure, reinforcing the criteria for defining a building.
• Tower Hamlets London Borough Council v Bromley London Borough Council (2015): Clarified that certain large sculptures remain chattels and do not qualify as buildings unless they are integral to the design of the property.

These precedents collectively informed the Supreme Court's approach to re-evaluating the criteria for what constitutes a building within the context of listed structures.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court delved into whether the current statutory framework adequately allows for challenging the classification of listed items as buildings. The crux of the legal reasoning involved:

• Extended Definition: The court scrutinized the "extended definition" within section 1(5) of the Listed Buildings Act, which treats certain objects within the curtilage of a building as part of it, provided they meet specific criteria.
• Skerritts Test Application: The court affirmed the relevance of the Skerritts test—size, permanence, and degree of physical attachment—in determining whether an object qualifies as a building.
• Conclusive Nature of Listing: Contrary to lower court rulings, the Supreme Court held that being listed is not conclusive for an object being a building. It emphasized that the status could be challenged, thus ensuring legal fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice.
• Role of Planning Inspectors: The court maintained that planners have a role in assessing the status of listed items but should operate within clear legal guidelines to avoid arbitrary classifications.

The judgment underscored the necessity for transparent criteria and acknowledged inconsistencies in existing guidelines, recommending further refinement to support legal clarity.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for heritage conservation law in the UK. Key impacts include:

• Reaffirmation of Legal Challenges: It reinforces the right of property owners to legally challenge the classification of listed items, promoting a more balanced approach between preservation and property rights.
• Clarification of Definitions: By elucidating the application of the Skerritts test, the judgment provides clearer guidelines for determining what constitutes a building, aiding both legal practitioners and heritage bodies.
• Guidance for Heritage Bodies: The recommendation for improved guidance documents urges Historic England and similar bodies to refine their selection and evaluation criteria, ensuring consistency across cases.
• Influence on Future Cases: Future litigation involving listed structures will likely reference this judgment, shaping the development of case law surrounding heritage conservation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Dill v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government represents a pivotal moment in UK heritage conservation law. By affirming that listed items can be re-evaluated as non-buildings and establishing the necessity for clear criteria in such determinations, the court has reinforced the principles of legal fairness and precision in statutory interpretation. This decision not only empowers property owners to challenge listings that may not meet the robust criteria but also calls upon heritage bodies to enhance their guidelines, ensuring consistent and fair application of the law. As heritage structures continue to evolve in their cultural significance and physical manifestations, this judgment ensures that the legal framework remains adaptable, equitable, and justly administered.