• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Q&A: Statues and Ornaments in the Garden of a Listed Building


My client’s family has owned a house for the last two centuries. It is Grade II* listed. When the house was built, statues and other ornaments were included by the architect in the landscaped garden. Over the last century, family members have bought other statues and ornaments. The house has to be sold to pay the inheritance tax bill for the late owner, who died last year. Are the children allowed to remove the statues or will some have to remain where they are and be included in the sale? The late owner gave his cousin a life-size statue of a terrier for his wedding present in 1975, which his mother had bought at a garden ornament auction just after World War II. It had been created by a recognised sculptor and had sat on the ground by the house for three decades up to 1975. The children have just discovered that it has a separate list entry. What should they do about that?


Each statue, ornament or other object will need to be assessed individually, to establish

  1. if it falls within the extended definition of a listed building or
  2. if it is listed as a building in its own right. 

Those statues which have been there since before July 1948 and are part of the land or relate to the design of the listed building and its setting, will fall under the extended definition of listed building and will need to remain in place (unless listed building consent is obtained for their removal, which seems unlikely here). The statue of the small dog was there from 1945 to 1975, but it was never affixed to the building or land in its curtilage and the statue is easily movable, so it should not be deemed to be a building in its own right (or to fall within the extended definition). Hopefully the family could obtain consent for it to be delisted. The small statues bought by the family, which are not affixed to the building or land in its curtilage, which arrived there after July 1948 and which are not separately listed, could all hopefully be removed. 


The recent Supreme Court decision of Dill v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government and another [2020] related to a pair of 18th century lead urns, each resting on a limestone pedestal of a later date (each in turn resting on concrete slabs placed on the ground). The urns had been sold by Mr Dill in 2009, who was not aware of their listing. Five years later, the local authority discovered that the urns had been removed, then sent a letter to Mr Dill, informing him that listed building consent was required for their removal and threatening formal action. Mr Dill’s listed building consent application was refused and an enforcement notice was issued, requiring the urns to be reinstated. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which looked carefully at the status of garden ornaments, statues and other objects/structures and what factors determine whether they are protected by being “curtilage structures” to listed buildings, or “buildings” which could be listed in their own right. The judgment sets out the tests clearly (and very helpfully) for both ways in which a statue/ornamental object could be listed:

  1. The first is where objects or structures are treated as part of a listed building, if they are affixed to it or have been in its curtilage since before July 1948 and are either physically attached to the ground or directly related to the overall design/setting of the listed building and so form part of the building within the extended definition. This is distinguished from the circumstances in which an object or structure may qualify for listing as a building in its own right, as below.
  2. The general principle is that being on the list or not, determines whether or not a building is listed in its own right. But simply being on the list cannot make an object into a building and justify it being there. The Skerritts case test applies to this second strand, under which the size, permanence and degree of physical attachment of each individual object is assessed in evaluative terms, to work out whether the object is a building and so should be listed.

There may well be challenges to the listed status of statues and other ornamental objects which are independently listed, but which do not meet the second limb above and so are not “buildings” in their own right, on the back of this Supreme Court decision.

This article was written by Helen Hutton at Charles Russell Speechlys and was co-authored with Rupert Warren QC from Landmark Chambers. For more information, please contact Helen.

Our thinking

  • Women in Leadership: Planning for the future

    Sarah Wigington


  • In-House Insights: Legal operations at work - how to do more with less

    Megan Paul


  • Property Patter – Filming Agreements Part 2

    Naomi Nettleton


  • The Financial Times quotes Sophie Dworetzsky on potential drawbacks of changing or scrapping UK non-dom rules

    Sophie Dworetzsky

    In the Press

  • Take-aways for UK firms from ESMA’s consultation on reverse solicitation

    Cheryl Tham


  • James Souter discusses M&S's successful legal challenge against the UK government with various national, broadcast, international and trade outlets

    James Souter

    In the Press

  • Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill: Where are we now?

    Laura Bushaway


  • Multiple titles including The Telegraph, City AM and Bloomberg quote Dominic Lawrance on the potential scrapping of non-dom rules in the Spring Budget

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

  • The Grocer quotes Kelvin Tanner on the impact of upcoming visa changes on the hospitality industry

    Kelvin Tanner

    In the Press

  • The Daily Telegraph quotes Nick Hurley on the legalities of asking for childcare employment in lieu of rent

    Nick Hurley

    In the Press

  • FCA Authorisation: Do I need to be FCA-regulated?

    Richard Ellis


  • Post-sale planning: The Maximisation and Protection of Private Wealth following a Business Sale or Exit Event

    Tabitha Collett


  • City AM quotes William Garner on FCA plans to 'name and shame' firms under investigation

    William Garner

    In the Press

  • Supreme Court confirms injunctions can be granted against newcomers

    Harriet Durn


  • Charles Russell Speechlys ‘Client Conversations’ welcomes one of the best strikers of all time and greatest players in Premier League history, Alan Shearer CBE

    Simon Ridpath


  • Edward Robinson and Charlie Searle write for FT Adviser on key considerations when an individual inherits company shares

    Edward Robinson

    In the Press

  • Hugh Gunson and Karin Mouhon write for Tax Journal on a recent Upper Tribunal decision - HMRC v The Taxpayer

    Hugh Gunson

    In the Press

  • Pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the workplace

    Michael Powner


  • Client Conversations Podcast: Alan Shearer CBE

    Simon Ridpath


  • Sifted quotes Victoria Younghusband on a boardroom disagreement involving Klarna and Sequoia Capital

    Victoria Younghusband

    In the Press

Back to top