PLANS to demolish a listed building badly damaged in a fire earlier this year have been rejected by Bradford Council.

An application was submitted earlier this year to demolish the former Tanks and Drum building at Bowling Iron Works in Bowling Back Lane.

The Grade-II listed building, also known as Bowling House, was built in the 1830s, and stands out among industrial units in the area as a traditional stone built building.

Its owners, the Leo Sawrij Group, applied to flatten the building following a fire in February which they said left it in a dangerous state, with demolition the “only option” to keep the site safe.

The building had been derelict for a number of years and showed signs of neglect prior to the fire, and an office extension to the building is also in a state of disrepair.

In the plans it said the fire, which was suspected to be deliberate, had caused “significant structural damage and partial collapse”.

It added that structural engineers assessed the building and said it was “unstable, at risk of immediate collapse, and cannot be safely worked on”, therefore demolition was the only suitable option.

The Leo Sawrij Group bought the building in 2019, and said it had been a target for vandals for a number of years prior.

The plans were objected to by heritage organisation The Georgian Group, who said it would result in “total loss of a heritage asset” and that tests for demolishing a listed building had not been met.

Bradford Council’s conservation team and Historic England both also objected to the plans.

Planning officers said the building was “of some status” and associated with Bowling Iron Works, a nationally recognised company in the 19th Century.

They also added that the planning statement, from September 2020 found the building structurally sound, however this was before the fire happened.

They also said the plan’s heritage statement was “not detailed enough” to understand the significance of the building.

Planning officers were also critical of the lack of consideration given to how the building could be made safe and further evaluation of the site and how it can be saved needs to take place.

They added if further investigation found the building to be “economically unviable” to save, a further updated heritage statement is needed to justify how the benefit of demolishing it would outweigh its historical importance.

They also added that demolition is “irreversible” and is only granted in an “absolute last resort”, and the firm had not demonstrated other options to save the building had been considered.

They concluded: “We acknowledge the poor condition of the building, but this does not in itself justify its loss.”