- Decision
- dismissed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A James
- Authority
- Canterbury (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6008107
- Application reference
- CA/25/02066
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent for a larger replacement front porch with WC at a Grade II 18th-century cottage (appeal B; planning appeal A is 6008105)
- Site context
- listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2)
- Development plan policies
- Canterbury District Local Plan 2017 DBE3, DBE6, HE1, HE4, HE5
- Main issues
- special interest of Grade II listed building
Summary
Listed building consent for a larger front porch with a WC at Dane Cottage, a Grade II 18th-century house in Petham. The porch would not be subservient and would break the eaves line, causing a low level of harm. The accessibility benefits were mainly private and the least harmful option was not shown. Dismissed, with the planning appeal (6008105).
Issues and findings
- Effect. Overall "the proposed porch would fail to be subservient to the listed building" (DL ¶11).
- Degree and weight. "I find that the proposal would cause harm to the special interest of the listed building, albeit the harm would be at a low level. Nonetheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection and the Framework is clear that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight." (DL ¶15).
- Public benefits. An easier downstairs WC helps older and less mobile occupants: "However, this is primarily a private benefit. Nonetheless, there is no clear and convincing justification before me that the proposal represents the least harmful way of achieving these benefits." (DL ¶16). "Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision." (DL ¶18).
Planning balance
HE6(4): limited public benefits do not outweigh low but considerable-weight harm; conflict with HE4 and HE6 (DL ¶18-19).
What made the difference
The porch's size and catslide roof relative to a modest cottage. The benefits were domestic and could not show that a less harmful design was unavailable.
Transferable points
- "a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection": low-graded harm still carries considerable importance and weight (DL ¶15).
- Accessibility improvements for a private dwelling are primarily private benefits, and HE4(2) asks whether the scheme is the least harmful way to achieve them (DL ¶16-17).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | low level of harm - porch not subservient, catslide roof interrupts eaves line, obscures part of timber frame; no historic fabric lost (DL 9-11, 15) |
| HE6(4) | fail | limited | small economic benefit; accessibility and downstairs WC primarily private; dwelling use not shown to depend on it (DL 16-18) |
| HE4(2) | fail | no clear and convincing justification that this is the least harmful way to achieve the benefits (DL 16, 19) |
Key facts
- Joint letter with planning appeal A (6008105, not written up); both dismissed
- Existing porch is early 21st century and modest; a larger historic structure once existed but its form is unknown (DL 8, 12)
- Earlier larger scheme dismissed on appeal; not a fallback (DL 13)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.