CONTEXT 189 : SEPTEMBER 2026 13 few original features survived (the main exception being the Speaker’s Parlour, which would be restored). The external appearance would remain the same but the interior would be conserved in its ruined state, and made accessible to the public by installing new walkways to provide a unique insight into the construction of an 18th-century stately home. There would also be a new rooftop terrace. Guildford Borough Council approved the plans. The Georgian Group is challenging this decision, based on the interpretation of heritage law and policy in situations where major buildings have been damaged by fire. It is expected that the High Court will clarify how decision-makers should balance significance, harm and long-term future use. London Wall case, R (Barbican Quarter Organisation Ltd) v City of London Corporation [2026] EWHC 687 (Admin) The High Court issued a critical judgment concerning local authorities granting planning permission to themselves (‘self-grants’) on architecturally sensitive sites. The issue in this case relates to the dispute involving the proposed demolition of Bastion House and the former Museum of London rotunda. Activists argued that the council failed to properly weigh the retention and adaptive reuse of these modern built heritage structures against the sustainability impact of full demolition. The High Court provided definitive guidance on the legal requirement for ‘functional separation’ (ensuring that the council’s development team and planning committee operate entirely independently) when deciding the fate of properties located directly adjacent to protected listed environments and scheduled monuments. The Royal Mint Chinese Embassy consent challenge (July 2026) The High Court formally dismissed a statutory and judicial review challenge brought by a local community group against the government’s approval of planning permission and listed building consent for the new Chinese Embassy. The proposed development site is situated at the Royal Mint complex in London, which contains a collection of significant Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings, and sits atop the archaeological remains of a medieval Cistercian Abbey. The High Court ruled that the secretary of state had not acted unlawfully, confirming that the intensive built heritage, security and public protest impacts had been fairly and lawfully balanced when granting the consents. Appeal Ref: 3333257, 27 Cavendish Road Eastbourne, listed building enforcement notice This appeal emphasises the importance of ensuring that enforcement notices are carefully drafted. It related to the unauthorised removal of sash windows and their replacement with uPVC. The enforcement notice should have specified which windows had been replaced and included a schedule or plan, and detailed the replacement windows accurately. The inspector quashed the decision, stating it was hopelessly ambiguous and uncertain. The inspector found the notice to be to be null, and stated that if the council had kept a record of the notice on any register, it should consider reviewing it. Please send interesting appeal cases to me at chairnw@ihbc.org. uk and I will report them. Alexandra Fairclough is heritage and design lead at Bolton Council, with postgraduate qualifications in law (barrister) and architecture. The AI version From Edward Holland I was recently asked to provide an owner of a listed building with written advice on what, if any, of the adjacent farm buildings could reasonably be deemed to be in the curtilage. I submitted my detailed analysis of the criteria for curtilage and how they applied to this site. The owner then told me they had put my report through AI and wished to submit the amended version that this had generated. The presentation of the revised report and its style of writing were very significantly changed, and it had introduced one or two misunderstandings or inaccuracies. It was no longer a report I was happy to have my name on. I wonder if any other members or independent consultants have had their professional work challenged by AI? I also wonder where the consultant stands legally in such situations. Fortunately, in this case the client told me what they had done, and although it was after the event, the formal issue of the AI version was averted. However, it left me wondering where would I stand if the client had just sent off the AI version, without my knowledge, claiming it to be my report? Edward Holland, Holland Heritage We would be interested to hear if any Context readers have had similar experiences. Editor Please stop it! (Part 2) From Bob Kindred MBE Further to my letter in the previous issue (Context 188, June 2026, page 3) regarding the obsolescence of conservation area consent in England, local authorities might also wish to check that their web pages no longer refer to the English Heritage Heritage at Risk Register – a function, of course, taken over by Historic England in 2015. Bob Kindred is currently researching local authority buildings-at-risk registers. Vox pop Director’s cut Letters New member profile Periodically Notes from the chair Book reviews
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=