The cottage formed part of two 19th century extensions to a 17th century grade II listed merchant's house. The appellant argued that the cottage was not statutorily listed because it was not mentioned in the list description for the main building and was not a structure that was fixed to the building.
The council asserted that it formed part of the rear wing of the main house. It cited Attorney-General v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (1983) and Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another (1997), in which the courts laid down the main considerations that need to be assessed in deciding whether a structure is a chattel or forms part of a listed building.
The inspector noted that some of the brickwork in the cottage matched that on the main house. It had been built in the rear garden and at some point in time must have served some ancillary purpose to the principal dwelling, he observed. There was no indication that the cottage was physically separate when the main house was listed in 1950, he added. He ruled that the cottage was listed.
For the most part, he concluded that the UPVC windows and doors had no regard to the historic and architectural importance of the building. However, he found four of the windows acceptable because they had replaced decayed modern timber frames that were probably more damaging to the character of the building. The notice was varied and upheld.
DCS No: 30070264; Inspector: John Martin; Hearing.