Last May, Jonathan Hobson was cleared by District Judge Curtis at Beverley Magistrates Court of an offence under the 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conserv-ation Areas) Act, after the judge ruled that parts of a range of single storey stables attached to the Grade II listed Old Mill, Wansford, were being rebuilt after they were dismantled.

He ruled that the works, taken together, had not had such an effect on the character of the listed building as a building of special architectural or historic interest to justify a conviction.

He added that, when set against the significant alterations and modifications that had been carried out with the council's permission, a conviction based on this aspect would not be within the spirit of listed building legislation.

Last week, though, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, which claims the ruling leaves listed buildings across the country at risk and lacking in protection, asked the High Court to overturn it and rule that the judge should have considered the effect on the character of the building of the dismantling works, ignoring the later rebuilding.

However, dismissing its appeal, Lord Justice Keene ruled that the district judge was right, and that to adopt the council's approach would have been artificial.

He said: "If what is being done involves both a stage of removal or dismantling and a stage of rebuilding, it cannot in my view be right to ask the effect of these works in an artificial manner part of the way through.

"Is it open to the local planning authority to prosecute on the works of removal and to require the court to ignore the replacement stage?
"I do not believe that it is."

He said that such an approach could result in a criminal conviction even where the eventual works could even improve a listed building.

He continued: "What public benefit would have been involved by that, when the end result would have been beneficial?"

He rejected the council's argument that this inhibited a local authority's powers to protect listed buildings, ruling that it would still be open to a council to issue an enforcement notice or seek a court injunction preventing unauthorised dismantling works.
He said that the council had done neither in this case.

The council was refused permission to appeal, but is expected to ask the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, for permission to pursue what it claims is a point of public importance.

The council was ordered to pay Mr Hobson's legal costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

Mr Hobson was hired to plan and carry out renovation works to the Old Mill, the watermill and farmhouse of which date back to the 18th century.

Planning permission and listed building consent were granted in June 2005, permitting a number of works.

However, the dismantling of the late 19th century stable block at some stage between December 2005 and October 2006 was not carried out in accordance with the permissions.