WE, the residents of Hastings Pool, wish to thank you for your excellent article on our favourite historic Potting Shed (February 27).

The applicant’s adviser has claimed that the structure is not regarded as curtilage.

The authority has made clear that they fully accept the status of the potting shed as a “curtilage listed building”.

That is why the project description is classed as a “listed building consent”. It therefore requires protection under those extensive rules.

We also wish to correct the statement made by consultant Marcus Cleaver to the effect that the shed was severely damaged in a fire in 2005 and subsequently rebuilt.

This is misleading. The independent heritage statement states that the damage arose to the c1960s wooden shed attached. The brick structure is all original and there is evidence of the original brick gables having not been damaged or repaired. Photographs after the fire show this to be the case. Furthermore, because the shed is officially classed as curtilage, if it had been badly damaged, it would have required a listed building consent to rebuild. This was not the case.

May we also mention one other matter for your readers.

The independent report classed the shed as “rare” because it may be one of the few lofted potting sheds left in the country designed by Loudon in the Georgian era.

It may therefore be one of the few remaining potting sheds in the country. A search of the internet suggests this to be the case.

Mrs Paul Sargent Mrs Sheila Collis Mrs Kath Ross Mr Lindsay Kemp-Harper

Malvern