# 2 Ashfield Cottages, Hawkhurst (oak-framed garden room, listed building consent)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro
- **Authority:** Tunbridge Wells (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6006260
- **Application reference:** 26/00016/LBC
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Listed building consent for an oak-framed single-storey side garden room to one of a Grade II listed pair of cottages (Appeal B; linked planning Appeal A 6006259)
- **Site context:** listed-building-setting, national-landscape
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE4(2), HE6(4)
- **Development plan policies:** Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2025 EN4, H11
- **Main issues:** special interest of listed building
- **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, listed-building, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, national-landscape

## Summary
The listed building consent half of the Hawkhurst garden-room appeals (planning Appeal A is PINS-6006259). The oak-framed extension's width and depth would unbalance a Grade II cottage pair, and its glazing and solid link would contrast starkly with the host. HE6 applied; the benefits were private or achievable less harmfully. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to provide comments on the revised Framework" (DL ¶5).
- **Harm.** "its scale would fail to be subservient and would overwhelm the proportions and architectural detailing of the host building" (DL ¶10). No fabric loss, but "significance derives from more than surviving fabric alone and includes the building's form, proportions, appearance and legibility" (DL ¶12).
- **Weight.** "Any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶14).
- **HE6(4): FAIL.** Long-term use not shown to depend on this scheme: "there is nothing before me to suggest that this could not be achieved in another, less harmful manner" (DL ¶16).

## Planning balance
HE6(4) harm against public benefits, with HE4(2) set out. The letter ends "insufficient to outweigh the substantial weight attached to the heritage harm identified" (DL ¶16), which attaches the HE6(1) conservation weight to the harm; incidental.

## What made the difference
The pair's symmetry and legibility are part of the listed building's significance, so a large side extension harmed it even with no fabric lost.

## Transferable points
- Significance includes form, proportions and legibility, not only fabric (DL ¶12).
- A long-term-use benefit fails where it could be achieved less harmfully (DL ¶16).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation; harm to the pair's balance, proportions and legibility, degree not graded (DL 10-14)
- **HE4(2): fail.** requirement for clear and convincing justification set out (DL 13); benefits achievable in a less harmful way (DL 16)
- **HE6(4): fail.** internal space, long-term use (not shown to need this scheme) and construction benefits insufficient (DL 14, 16)

## Key facts
- Joint letter with planning Appeal A 6006259; both dismissed (DL 1-3)
- Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5)
- Extension attached to a modern addition; no loss of historic fabric, but "significance derives from more than surviving fabric alone" (DL 12)
- High Weald National Landscape natural beauty conserved; harm localised (DL 18)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006260
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fd7ea972-63d6-4c09-877c-878f50bcf535

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006260.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.