Appeal 6002388

The appeal is dismissed.

As the appeal site is within the Roundhay Conservation Area (the CA), I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Furthermore, Section 66 (1) of the Act requires that, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

I have taken the description of the development from the appeal form rather than the application form as this provides a more accurate description. Furthermore, I note that the development has already been carried out and this appears to be consistent with the plans before me. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the CA and on the setting of the adjacent [name] listed building known as ‘The Oakwood Fish Bar’ ([name]. 1256174) (the LB).

The appeal site comprises the forecourt to a public house occupying part of a stone-built terrace of commercial premises on [address]. The building forms part of a prominent and continuous parade of late-19th century commercial properties located at the junction of [address] with [address] and [address]. The parade is characterised by a consistent building line, shared scale and proportions, with a strong sense of visual coherence arising from the rhythm and repetition of architectural form. This coherence is enlivened by subtle variation between individual buildings, expressed through differences in detailing, fenestration, and decorative embellishment.

At street level, the terrace is experienced as a harmonious and complementary composition, with the main elevations set behind a shallow forecourt that runs along the length of the parade and is visually distinguished from the public footway by a change in surface treatment. At ground-floor level the surrounding area is predominantly commercial in character, comprising cafés, restaurants and public houses. The forecourt area accommodates outdoor seating associated with several of the commercial uses, while maintaining clear views of the building façades and their architectural detailing when experienced from the public realm.

The site lies within the Oakwood Character Area of the CA. The significance of the CA, in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, derives principally from the historic layout and the quality of the buildings associated with the residential and commercial development of the Roundhay area. The appeal building is identified as a positive building within the Roundhay Conservation Area Appraisal, along with the remainder of the parade. The terrace occupies a visually prominent position within the CA and makes an important contribution to its character and appearance through the quality of its architecture, the consistency of its form, and the balanced relationship between uniformity and variation along the frontage.

The appeal building is directly attached to the LB, which occupies the adjoining unit within the same terrace. The terrace, including the appeal site and the LB, is intervisible with other designated heritage assets in the area, including the [name] listed [name] ([name]. 1256173) and the Grade II Roundhay Park registered park and garden ([name]. 1001225). Together, these assets contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA and to the significance of its wider historic townscape.

The adjoining LB derives its significance principally from its architectural interest, which reflects a later phase of commercial development within the terrace. In particular, the building incorporates a discreet, although striking, late-1930s shopfront which is notable for its use of ‘modern’ design principles of the period. This includes a strong horizontal emphasis, large areas of glazing, and a simplified treatment of form and detailing, which together distinguish it from the 19th-century elements of the surrounding parade. The shopfront represents a deliberate and well-executed intervention of its time, illustrating the evolution of commercial architecture along [address] while remaining successfully integrated within the wider historic terrace. It is within this historic and architectural context that the appeal development falls to be considered.

The appeal development comprises a freestanding pergola structure erected within the forecourt to the public house, positioned in front of the principal elevation and extending across much of the frontage, with an open-sided form and a flat slatted roof. By reason of its siting and extent, the pergola introduces a strong horizontal element which interrupts the established rhythm and composition of the terrace when experienced from the public realm. The structure cuts across the building line at street level, visually bisecting the façade and disrupting the balanced relationship between uniformity and subtle architectural variation that characterises the parade.

In addition, the materials and architectural language of the pergola are distinctly utilitarian in appearance, lacking the material richness and crafted detailing that characterise the parade. When seen at street level, the metal framework and flat slatted roof read as an applied and visually discordant element when set against the robust masonry façades and refined architectural detailing.

Although the pergola is positioned to one side of the LB, its presence within the shared forecourt would partially obscure and reduce the visibility of the architectural detailing of the late-1930s shopfront when experienced from the street. In addition, the utilitarian appearance of the pergola, expressed through its slim metal framework and flat slatted roof, contrasts in an uncomplimentary manner with the quality of architectural expression evident in the LB, the host building and the wider terrace. As a result, the architectural clarity and legibility of the LB when experienced from the public realm are diminished, leading to harm to its setting.

Comparison has been made with the pergola associated with the [name] premises, located to the other side of the LB. However, that building differs materially in scale, form and proportions, and its relationship to the adjoining LB is also different. In particular, the [name] pergola sits further from the frontage of the LB and does not interrupt views of, or architectural relationships with, its principal elevation in the same way. While it is longer in overall extent, its siting and relationship to its host building result in a materially different visual effect. Accordingly, the circumstances are not directly comparable, and they do not alter my findings in relation to the effect of the appeal development.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation, and paragraph 215 requires that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Having regard to the limited scale of the appeal development, I find that the harm to the significance of both the CA and the adjoining LB lies at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm. Nevertheless, this harm is of considerable importance and weight.

The appeal has been advanced in the context of challenging economic conditions currently facing the hospitality sector and the important role that public houses can play in supporting local centres and community life. I also acknowledge that national policy supports the vitality and viability of town centres and encourages the retention and development of town centre uses. Against that background, there would be public benefits arising from the proposal, including enhanced outdoor facilities for the public house and associated social and economic benefits.

The pergola would provide a degree of additional shelter to the forecourt seating area, which may offer some benefit to the operation of the business. However, given the open-sided nature of the structure, its limited ability to provide effective weather protection, and the orientation of the appeal site, these benefits would be modest in nature. Moreover, I have not been provided with any detailed or compelling viability evidence to demonstrate that the retention of the pergola is necessary to secure the ongoing operation of the public house. Neither am I persuaded that the presence of the pergola would result in social or economic benefits of sufficient scale or certainty to carry significant weight.

When weighed against the less than substantial harm identified to the significance of the CA or to the LB, I find that in each instance the public benefits advanced are not sufficient either individually or cumulatively, to outweigh that harm.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal development would neither conserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA, and would fail to preserve the setting of the adjacent LB. Conflict therefore arises with Policies P10, P11 and P12 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (Review) (September

and saved Policies GP5, BD6, N14 and N19 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). These policies require, among other things, development to respond positively to local character, respect the scale, form, materials and architectural quality of existing buildings, and preserve the significance of designated heritage assets and their settings.

I have been referred to an appeal decision at Burscough Wharf1. That case related to the impact of a pergola on a non-designated heritage asset in a markedly different context, and was determined within a different planning framework, including the provisions of a neighbourhood plan. The circumstances of that appeal are therefore materially different, and it does not provide a compelling basis for reaching a different conclusion in his case.

Reference has been made to the value of the appeal development as a ‘safe space’ for vulnerable customers, to support from local residents and business owners, and to an increase in popularity of the public house since the installation of the structure. However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate these claims, and no representations have been submitted in support of the proposal. In any event, these matters would not outweigh the heritage harm identified.

The appellant also notes that the naming of the public house as the ‘[name] is intended to pay tribute to the nearby listed [name]. While this reflects an awareness of the local context, the name of the premises does not, in itself, enhance the character or appearance of the CA or preserve the setting of any nearby LB and is not a determinative consideration in this case.

The appeal development would conflict with the development plan, when considered as a whole, and would not meet the requirements of the Framework. Moreover, material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.