Appeal 6003553

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for fence with proposed changes and landscaping at [site address] , road running through Moreton, Thame, Oxfordshire [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of application Ref. P25/S2743/HH and subject to the following conditions:

This permission relates to the following approved plans and drawings: Site Location Plan: Ref. 24033.1B, Site Plan: Ref. 24033. Fencing.2.A and [name]-001.

If any part of the proposed hedge as shown on approved [name]-001, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, this shall be replaced no later than the next planting season with planting of similar size and species.

I observed that the new fencing and planting has already been undertaken and its design and form reflect [name]-001. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted drawing and my observations.

Because ‘retrospective’ is not an act of development, I have removed this term from my formal Decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Moreton Conservation Area and the setting of a Grade II Listed building.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving a listed building, its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. Section 72(1) of the same Act imposes a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. The National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) requires an assessment of the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal, including through changes to its setting.

[site address] is a [name] listed building, designated for its Group Value. Its significance lies principally in its early‐nineteenth‐century front elevation, including the unhorned sash windows, door surround and brick detailing. These features are confined to the principal façade. There is no reference in the listing to features of interest on the sides or rear, and on the available evidence the rear elevation is architecturally less coherent and contributes less to the building’s special interest.

The fence lies adjacent to this less sensitive part of the building, and a recently approved two‐storey extension now occupies the space between the cottage and the boundary. This new structure obscures views between the listed building and the fence, further limiting any influence the fence may have on the listed building’s setting.

The site also lies within the Moreton Conservation Area. Although the Conservation Area is designated, there is no adopted Conservation Area Appraisal and therefore no formal analysis of its defining characteristics. The immediate surroundings display a variety of boundary treatments, including close‐boarded fencing, hedging, woodland belts and mixed materials.

Boundary treatments in this part of Moreton are not uniform, and the presence of other close‐boarded fences nearby demonstrates that such features are not uncharacteristic of the locality.

The appellant states that the fence replaces an existing dilapidated one. [name] have limited information on this, I attach limited weight to that assertion. The new timber fence is close‐boarded and extensive in length, broadly following the eastern boundary of the appeal site. It is approximately 2 metres high for most of its length, with a shorter section sloping down to around 1.3 metres near the site frontage.

A substantial proportion of the fence is set back from the nearby pond and screened by established woodland, making it largely invisible from public viewpoints. Even when leaf cover is reduced, the density of trunks and branches continues to filter views towards the boundary. The remainder is accompanied by new hedging and wildflower planting that will soften and increasingly obscure it as it matures, while the timber itself will weather to a subdued tone. Together, these factors ensure that the new boundary integrates with and complements its surroundings and also mitigates any loss of previous landscaping.

The fence is therefore experienced within a context of varied boundary treatments, and its presence does not disrupt a consistent or strongly defined pattern of soft landscaping.

For the above reasons, as constructed, and now supplemented by planting, the fence has a neutral effect on the setting of [site address] and causes no harm to the character or appearance of the Moreton Conservation Area. The development therefore preserves the significance of the designated heritage assets.

As such, the proposal accords with the design expectations of Policies DES1 and DES2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (‘LP’) in that the proposal respects the established local character and also accords with Policies ENV6, ENV7 and ENV8 of the LP, which collectively require the conservation of listed buildings, their settings and the special interest of Conservation Areas. Accordingly, the proposal also supports the aims of the Framework in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

The proposal also sit comfortably within the design and environmental principles of Policy CPQ1 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan 2, which seeks development that respects local character and enhances its setting.

Because the development has already commenced, I have not proposed the standard timescale condition for the implementation of the permission. However, a condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary as this provides certainty. In addition, a condition to secure the establishment of the proposed hedge is necessary and reasonable to safeguard the character and appearance of the appeal property and Moreton Conservation Area.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.