R v Secretary of State for Wales, ex parte Kennedy [1996] 1 PLR 97
Factors taken into account when considering whether an item is a fixture; particularly in relation to listed buildings
Facts
The appellant was the owner of a Grade II listed building which was subject to a notice of removal in respect of a carillon clock and three bronze chandeliers without an application for consent. The appellant argued that the building inspector had taken into account an irrelevant consideration when considering that the ringing out of the clock’s bells across the countryside was part of the building’s history and was therefore relevant to the purpose of the annexation under the test for whether an item was a fixture or chattel under Berkley v Poulett [1997] 1 EGLR 86.
Issues
The issue in this context was the extent of factors that could be taken into account in relation to whether an item was a fixture of chattel.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that the ordinary test for establishing whether an item was a fixture or a chattel applied equally in respect of planning law as to any other consideration. The free-standing nature of the clock did not prevent it from being a fixture. There was no suggestion that the building inspector had taken into account an irrelevance on the purpose of the annexation and, even if this could be found, it would not have invalidated the decision. The purpose of the annexation can be relatively broadly drawn depending on the circumstances.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article remains broadly accurate as a summary of the decision in R v Secretary of State for Wales, ex parte Kennedy [1996] 1 PLR 97. The general legal principles discussed — the two-limb test for fixtures and chattels (degree of annexation and purpose of annexation) and their application in the planning and listed buildings context — continue to reflect established common law. There are no statutory changes or subsequent appellate decisions known to have overturned or materially qualified the principles set out in this case. However, readers should note one factual inaccuracy in the article as published: Berkley v Poulett is cited with the date [1997] 1 EGLR 86, but the correct report citation is [1977] 1 EGLR 86, as the case was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1976–1977. This is a typographical error that could mislead readers searching for the authority. Readers should also be aware that the listed building consent regime is now governed by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which remains in force, and that the broader fixture/chattel test continues to be applied as a matter of common law across property, planning, and related contexts.
