A Hythe roof appeal has been dismissed after a Planning Inspector found that replacement clay tiles harmed a Grade II listed former pub and the surrounding conservation area. The decision concerns the Duke’s Head Inn on Dymchurch Road in Hythe, Kent, where roof and tile-hanging works had already been carried out.
Inspector A James issued the decision on 6 November 2026 following a 15 September site visit. The appeal challenged Folkestone and Hythe District Council’s refusal of listed building consent for replacement roof works, under application 25/1571/FH. The Inspector also considered the building’s prominent position beside the Royal Military Canal.
The case is a useful warning about replacing historic materials, relying on an earlier planning consent and trying to justify completed works afterwards. A modern clay tile may be similar in broad shape to a historic Kent peg tile, but that does not mean it preserves a building’s special interest.
Why the Hythe roof appeal was dismissed
The Duke’s Head Inn dates from the nineteenth century and was listed in 1950. Its traditional form, stucco finish, timber sash windows and historic roof covering all helped explain why it deserved protection. The Inspector also identified its contribution to the Hythe Conservation Area, including views from the canal, nearby roads, coastal path and recreation ground.
The Hythe roof appeal concerned Heritage Clay Plain Roof tiles in a Clayhall Birchwood Mix, together with roof vents and replacement hanging tiles. The Inspector accepted that the roof’s overall shape, height and profile had largely been retained, but found that the red and purple colour pattern and uniform finish lacked the subtler variations and ageing of the previous Kent peg tiles.
That assessment was not just about an individual building’s appearance from the street. The decision found that loss of historic fabric reduced the building’s architectural interest and weakened the contribution of its roof and tile hanging to the conservation area. The modernised finish was particularly visible because of the former inn’s prominent location.
Earlier approval did not cover the inn’s roof
The owner relied partly on consents granted in 2021 for converting the former pub to a café with flats above, converting an adjoining barn and building homes to the rear. A later application had discharged a condition approving the chosen clay tiles. However, the plans submitted with that application showed those tiles being used solely on the new houses and barn rather than the historic inn.
In the Hythe roof appeal, the Inspector distinguished approval for neighbouring buildings from permission to replace historic fabric on the listed building itself. The 2021 heritage material referred to repairs at the inn rather than wholesale roof replacement. It followed that the later discharge of condition could not be treated as consent for the completed roof works.
The appellant also referred to a separate appeal against a refusal to discharge a materials condition, and raised the wording of the earlier conditions. The Inspector made clear that only the section 20 appeal against refusal of listed building consent was being decided, not an appeal against those conditions. This distinction mattered to the legal and factual scope of the decision.
No detailed survey to justify removing every tile
The appellant said the old roof had deteriorated through salt exposure, frost damage and water ingress, leaving parts of the building damp and uninhabitable. The Inspector accepted that repairs were necessary to protect the property. However, evidence of a failing roof was not the same as evidence that every surviving historic tile had to be removed.
A critical weakness in the Hythe roof appeal was the absence of a comprehensive assessment of the historic roof. The Inspector noted that there was no detailed structural survey
and no equivalent damp or condition survey supporting the claim that all historic tiles needed replacement. Some earlier concrete or mismatched repairs were also present, but those did not justify removing all original material.
The Inspector also rejected the suggestion that previously unauthorised work automatically reduced the owner’s responsibilities. Even when unsympathetic alterations were made by an earlier owner, the statutory listed building controls and available remedies can still affect whoever now owns the property. Ownership history was therefore given limited weight in the planning assessment.
Alternative roof tiles and warranties
The decision examined whether reclaimed Kent peg tiles could have provided a more appropriate roof covering. In fact, after the works were carried out, a further consent under reference 24/1687 allowed the roof to be replaced using reclaimed Kent peg tiles. The appellant maintained that sufficient reclaimed tiles were unavailable, but the Inspector found no compelling evidence that the required quantity could not be sourced.
The Hythe roof appeal also raised performance and maintenance concerns. The appellant argued that reclaimed materials could be less durable, would not carry a manufacturer’s warranty and might not satisfy lender expectations. Those points were considered, but the Inspector was not convinced that a warranty was necessary to deliver the scheme or that more suitable alternatives had been fully explored.
Energy efficiency and modern building standards were relevant too. Yet the claimed energy savings had not been quantified, and there was no clear evidence that a more sympathetic scheme could not deliver similar benefits. The Inspector distinguished reasonable efforts to make a historic roof weathertight from proving that this particular replacement was the only workable solution.
Limited public benefit could not outweigh heritage harm
Under sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Inspector gave special attention to the listed building and conservation area. The revised August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, including policy HE6, advises that substantial weight should be given to an asset’s conservation when considering the effect of a proposal on a designated heritage asset.
Although the identified harm was low in degree, it was not dismissed as unimportant. The Inspector put the point plainly: a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection
. The potential economic benefit of investment in the property, improved weather protection and claimed thermal efficiency were weighed against the loss of historic fabric.
In the end, those claimed public benefits were given limited weight. There was no viability assessment showing that the replacement tiles were essential to keep the building in use, or evidence that the café and residential scheme could not proceed without this specific roof covering. The appeal was dismissed for failing to preserve the building’s special interest and the conservation area’s significance.
What the Hythe roof appeal means for owners
The Hythe roof appeal illustrates why a conservation-led repair specification and a clear record of existing fabric matter before work starts. Anyone considering similar works to a listed roof should establish which tiles are genuinely beyond repair, which can be reused, and whether proposed replacements match the appearance and significance of the historic building.
The point is covered more broadly in Planning Geek’s guide to roof replacement and planning permission. Listed building consent remains a separate issue from whether ordinary roof works would otherwise require planning permission, and earlier consents should be checked against their actual descriptions, plans and conditions.
Where a wholesale change is genuinely unavoidable, the evidence matters just as much as the material proposed. A carefully scoped survey, records of tile condition, supplier evidence and considered alternatives can help explain the choice. Planning Geek’s heritage impact assessment guidance explains why identifying significance and assessing harm properly is fundamental to these proposals.
Appeal decision and implications
The decision was issued on 6 November 2026 by Inspector A James, appeal reference 6007752. The dismissed appeal relates to listed building consent for the Duke’s Head Inn, not an enforcement decision or a general prohibition on all modern clay tiles. Outcomes on other buildings will depend on their particular historic fabric, significance, evidence and approved schemes.
The official appeal record provides the decision details. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. For owners and advisers, the practical lesson is to secure the correct listed building consent and support material choices with proper evidence before undertaking irreversible works.
0 Comments