Appeal 3354208

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted retrospectively for development already carried out, so I was able to view the garage in situ.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the garage on the setting of the [name] listed 98 and [address].

The Grade II listed 98 and [address] are a two-storey pair of former estate cottages, which sit perpendicular to the road. The building is constructed of sandstone with a stone slate roof, coped gable ends, corniced chimneys, and mullioned windows. Matching single-storey projections on the north elevation are likely to be later additions. The significance of the building, in the main, is derived from its age, materials, and architectural detailing. The land to the north contains a raised area of hardstanding for parking purposes, but nonetheless affords an open setting and clear view of the listed buildings from the road, such that it contributes positively to, and assists in revealing, the significance of these heritage assets.

In determining this appeal, I have a duty, as set out in the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) 1990 Act, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed buildings. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that development within the setting of heritage assets can affect their significance. Policy EN3 of Bradford’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017 (the CS) requires that all proposals for development conserve and where appropriate, enhance the heritage significance and setting of Bradford’s heritage assets.

The garage subject to this appeal is located at the end of the hardstanding, some 8 metres from the main north wall of No 98. It is a flat roof structure measuring approximately 5 metres wide, 4.3 metres deep, 2.3 metres high, and is constructed of pre-cast concrete with a pebble dash finish and a painted metal door at the front.

Although the garage is set well back from the road, it is a sizeable structure in a raised position which harmfully diminishes the open setting to the north of the listed cottages. In addition, its box-like design, and the materials used, fails to respect the traditional materials and architectural style of the cottages.

I acknowledge that the garage is not conspicuous in wider views along [address]. Nevertheless, it can be seen from immediately outside the site and from the [address] junction opposite, where it appears visually discordant. In any event, listed buildings and their settings are to be protected for their own intrinsic value and significance, irrespective of any public views.

I therefore find that the garage has a negative impact on the setting and overall significance of 98 and [address] as designated heritage assets. While the harm would be classed as less than substantial in the terms of the Framework, this matter must be afforded considerable importance and weight. Given the nature of the development, there are no public benefits which outweigh this harm.

Thus, significant conflict arises with the overarching statutory duty, the Framework, and Policy EN3 of the CS with regards to conserving or enhancing the historic environment. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.