Proposed front porch including W/C

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2026 by A James BSc (Hons) MA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th September 2026 Appeal A: 6008105 Dane Cottage, Hogg Lane, Petham, Kent CT4 5PJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Wayne Campbell against the decision of Canterbury City Council. • The application reference is CA/25/02065. • The development is proposed front porch including W/C. Appeal Ref: 6008107 Dane Cottage, Hogg Lane, Petham, Kent CT4 5PJ • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Mr Wayne Campbell against the decision of Canterbury City Council. • The application reference is CA/25/02066. • The works relate to a proposed front porch including W/C. Decisions 1. Appeal A is dismissed. 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. As the appeals relate to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). 4. Since the Council issued its decision notices, a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. Both main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on it and I have taken all comments received into consideration. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a Grade II listed building, known as ‘Dane Cottage’ (Ref: 1085508), and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Reasons 6. Dane Cottage is a Grade II listed building, which dates back to around the 18th century. The building was extended in the late-20th century and then subdivided into two dwellings. The appeal property is single storey in height, with Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6008105 and Appeal B: 6008107 2 accommodation in the roof. It has a timber frame and is predominately constructed of red brick, with some burnt headers. Flint is also present on part of the front and rear elevations. The appeal property has a half hipped, clay tiled roof with gabled dormer windows. The front and rear elevations have a consistent eaves line. There is a porch on the front elevation, which was constructed at the beginning of the 21st century. The existing porch is modest in size. It has a pitched roof and is constructed of timber and brick, with glazing present on the side elevations. 7. Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I find that the listed building’s special interest, insofar as is relevant to these appeals, is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of domestic architecture from the 18th century. The building’s surviving historic fabric, presence of traditional materials and its pleasing architectural composition make important contributions in these regards. 8. The proposal seeks to demolish the existing porch, which was constructed in the early 21st century1. While the existing porch is a modern addition, it is modest in size and height and appears subservient to the listed building. Its pitched roof form complements the design of the gabled dormer windows and does not interfere with the eaves line of the host building. 9. The proposed porch would incorporate a small entrance area and downstairs W.C. It would be constructed of traditional materials that would complement those found on the host building. However, the proposed porch would be larger in size than the existing porch. Given its size and its roof form, it would be a far more prominent feature on the front elevation of the building than the existing porch. The proposed catslide roof would interrupt the building’s consistent eaves line. The proposed roof slope would also fail to respect the gradient of the main roof. Despite the large area of glazing that is proposed on the side elevation, the proposal by reason of the extent of brickwork and catslide roof form would be more solid in its appearance than the existing porch. Although timber joinery is proposed, I find that the design and the extent of the proposed fenestration fails to respect the more modest and traditional style fenestration found on the historic part of the building. 10. The proposed porch would be sited next to part of the building that has already been altered and contains some more modern fabric. The proposal would not result in the loss of any historic fabric. However, it would partially obscure a section of the front elevation of the building and would erode the building’s simplistic form. The proposal would also partially obscure a small section of the building’s historic timber frame, which is currently visible externally. 11. Overall, I find that the proposed porch would fail to be subservient to the listed building. It would result in a discordant feature on the front elevation, which would fail to respect the architectural composition of this historic building. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. 12. It appears that a larger structure was once present on the front elevation of the building; however, this was removed some time ago. While full details of the previous structure are not before me, it appears that it had a materially different roof form. I therefore give it limited weight in my decision and I do not find that the appeal scheme better reflects the building’s historic character. 1 Application ref: CAL/00/00046 Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6008105 and Appeal B: 6008107 3 13. The appellant argues that the appeal scheme is less intensive than an earlier scheme. However, that scheme was dismissed at appeal2 and therefore does not establish an acceptable benchmark or fallback position. While the current proposal may be reduced in scale, I must assess it on its own merits. 14. The appellant has provided examples of porches elsewhere in the district that have received listed building consent. However, those porches differ materially from the appeal proposal in their design and roof form. Consequently, their effects on their respective listed buildings are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. I therefore give them limited weight in my decision. 15. For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the Grade II listed building. Policy HE6 of the Framework advises that when considering the effect of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. In this case, 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. Where harm is identified, the Framework requires that the effect on the asset and its significance be weighed against any public benefits from the proposal. 16. The proposal would result in investment into the property, which would have a small economic benefit. I give this limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. The proposal would improve the accessibility and functionality of the dwelling and provide improved living conditions for occupants. It would also provide a downstairs W.C. which would be easier for older and less mobile individuals to access, particularly given the steep staircase. 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. 17. It is clear that the benefits which would accrue would primarily be of a private nature. There is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the use of the listed building as a dwelling would cease in the absence of the proposal. As a result, I do not find the proposal necessary to secure the viability and long-term conservation of the listed building. 18. Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision. Consequently, there would be insufficient public benefits arising from the proposal to outweigh this harm. 19. Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. The proposal would also fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and Policies HE4 and HE6 of the Framework. In addition, the proposal would conflict with Policies DBE3, DBE6, HE1, HE4 and HE5 of the Canterbury District Local Plan, July 2017. These policies, among other things, seek to protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment and that alterations and extensions to listed buildings preserve and enhance their character and appearance and the special features for which they are designated. 2 Application refs: 20/01841 and 20/01842 Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6008105 and Appeal B: 6008107 4 Other Matters 20. I acknowledge the support for the proposal by the Parish Council; however, this does not alter my findings set out above. Conclusion 21. Appeal A: The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, for the reasons given above, Appeal A is dismissed. 22. Appeal B: For the reasons given above, Appeal B is dismissed. A James INSPECTOR