Planning and listed building consent had been quashed in the High Court after a finding that the inspector had erred by misrepresenting the council’s position. The council had not specifically objected to elements of the proposals in its reasons for refusal but nevertheless identified the harm that would result to the listed building in a case officer’s report submitted in response to the appellants' appeal. The previous inspector’s decisions had stated that the council had no objection to a bi-folding door in the rear elevation of the main building or a sunken patio and that there was no reason to disagree.
Examining the case afresh, the inspector found a loss of historic fabric not only from demolition of the former outside WCs and coal stores but also from removal of part of the historic rear elevation where the bi-folding door would be inserted. He also held the resultant excessively large opening onto a sunken patio would undermine the historic layout of the cottage and the replacement garage would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building as well as the setting of other, nearby listed buildings. He judged the claimed public benefit of relieving parking stress did not outweigh the heritage harm he had identified and he dismissed the appeals.
Inspector: Roger Catchpole; Written representations