Appeal 6001702

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development contained within the Council’s Decision Notice as I consider it describes the development more accurately, but in doing this I have nonetheless had full regard in my reasoning to the description on the application form.

The application form states that the development was completed in April 2025. Based upon my site visit and on the evidence before me, I have considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) outlines the statutory duty in respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area. Given that the appeal site is located within the Leafield Conservation Area (the CA), I have had special regard to section 72(1) in my determination of this appeal.

As the site is within the Cotswolds National Landscape (the CNL) I have paid regard to my duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Pinewood is a semi-detached dwelling and has a front garden which is directly adjacent to [address]. The CA comprises the majority of Leafield. The area is generally characterised by low dry-stone walls as well as tree and hedges. There is a mix of building types, ages and scales within the CA and Leafield.

The West Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016 (the WODG) outlines, amongst other things, that dry stone walling is especially characteristic of the area. They knit together settlements and give definition to roads, fields and properties. It further states that in general, traditional stone walling should be retained and restored in Conservation Areas and will often represent an appropriate choice where new boundary treatments are required.

Accordingly, the low dry-stone walls are, in my planning judgement, a prominent feature of the character and appearance of Leafield and thus the CA as a whole. The appeal scheme consists of a fence which sits above a dry-stone wall. It is adjacent to the public highway. The immediate context of the appeal site and indeed [address], is relatively open. In my planning judgement, this is partly due to the low dry-stone walls that feature heavily within the CA.

[name] acknowledge that Pinewood was constructed in approximately the 1970’s, it remains that it is viewed within the context of the CA and the surrounding area. Consequently, in my planning judgement, the appeal scheme due to its scale and massing results in a harmful enclosure of the appeal site. It is therefore a relatively conspicuous feature in the relatively open character of the streetscape seen on [address]. Consequently, it results in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area as well as harm to the significance of the CA.

I am mindful that the WODG outlines, amongst other things, that boundary treatments should be carefully chosen to reinforce local character and that other types of boundary feature including hedging, willow hurdles and slatted fencing are particularly well suited to the rural context. Nevertheless, considering the site-specific context and the local character of Leafield, to my mind, the appeal scheme does not reinforce the overall local character of the CA and thus the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Therefore, in my planning judgement, the weathering of the fence over time nor the addition of climbing plants would prevent the harm I have identified above due to its scale and massing.

The appellant refers to other examples of similar schemes in the CA and also in Shipton-under-Wychwood Conservation area. It is also highlighted in the evidence before me that a number of properties are set back behind modest frontage spaces that often include grass verges, planting and wooden fences, some of which are above dry-stone walls in the CA.

I do not have the full circumstances of these and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and for the reasons given above, they do not justify a development that I have identified to result in unacceptable harm to the CA as well as the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of the development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets or from development within their setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification.

The development would fail to preserve the significance of the CA and given its scale, I find the harm to be less than substantial but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I am mindful of the positive comments from neighbouring residents in relation to the appeal scheme which highlight, amongst other things, the perceived improvement the appeal scheme makes when compared with the previous boundary hedge regarding both appearance and living conditions (daylight/sunlight). Additionally, that as a consequence of the appeal scheme, the Parish Council noticeboard is now more clearly visible.

I also note in the evidence before me that the appellant chose to remove and not to replace the previous hedge to ensure the protection of the dry-stone wall as well as prevent issues with waterpipes as result of the roots and limited daylight/sunlight into both the garden and Pinewood.

However, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the replacement of the boundary hedge could not be achieved by actions which would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area as well as the significance of the CA. Thus, a clear and convincing justification has not been provided and the appellant’s claimed public benefits attract limited weight.

Taking the stated benefits above, the harm that is caused to the significance of the CA is not outweighed by public benefits.

Given the above and in the absence of any defined significant public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the appeal scheme results in an incongruous design that is at odds with the overall character and appearance of the surrounding area including the significance of the CA. Therefore, as a result, the appeal scheme fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. This fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 213 of the Framework and conflicts with Policies OS2, OS4, EH9, EH10 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 insofar as they seek to ensure developments demonstrate high quality design which is proportionate and appropriate in scale to their context, respect the historic and architectural character of the locality including conservation areas as well as contribute to local distinctiveness.

It is for the same reasons that the appeal scheme fails to accord with the aims of the WODG.

A lack of objection from the Highways Authority regarding highway safety is a neutral factor in my determination of this appeal.

The appeal scheme provides privacy and safety for the appellant and their family, so that they can enjoy their outdoor space. However, this is a private benefit.

The appeal site is located within the CNL. Paragraph 189 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 requires that relevant authorities must now ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name]. This replaces the previous duty on relevant authorities to ‘have regard to’ their statutory purposes. I have a statutory duty to consider whether the appeal scheme would further the statutory purposes of the CNL. There is limited development associated with the appeal scheme and consequently it does not result in an adverse impact on the CNL. I also note that the Council has not raised the effect of the development on the CNL as a putative reason for refusal.

I am aware that the site is nearby to the Grade II Listed building known as [address] which dates from around the late 17th Century. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in Section 66(1) of the Act, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. [address] is significant due to its architectural interest. Nevertheless, given the appeal site’s location and the extent of the development, I consider that it preserves the setting of the listed building. A lack of harm in this respect, however, does not alter my overall conclusions.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.