# Dane Cottage, Hogg Lane, Petham (porch, LBC)

- **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
- **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, listed-building-consent, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2

## 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
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** 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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008107
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dfcf45be-63bf-4289-bc93-3d01e2732b92

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008107.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.