Pursuant to a refusal of planning permission (P24/S2888/HH) on 5th November 2024, this application seeks approval for alternative as-built design changes, including the siting of a new package treatment plant and the retention of the former garage at Maysfi eld (retrospective)

poli Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 January 2026 by SE Hughes BA (Hons) PGDip MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000769 Maysfield, Mays Green, Harpsden, Henley-on-Thames RG9 4AJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs C & H Jamieson against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is P25/S1104/HH. • The development proposed is “Pursuant to a refusal of planning permission (P24/S2888/HH) on 5th November 2024, this application seeks approval for alternative as-built design changes, including the siting of a new package treatment plant and the retention of the former garage at Maysfi eld (retrospective)”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. During my site visit I was able to see that the dwelling had been extended, and an outbuilding to its east was already in situ. This ‘as built’ development was the subject of an application for retrospective approval which sought amendments to schemes approved in 20211 (‘the consented scheme’). That application was refused on 5 November 20242. The subject of this appeal is a subsequent application3 which sought revisions to the ‘as built’ development. 3. The appellants have accepted in their appeal submission that the eaves are too high and the rear gables and porch are out of keeping. Potential revised plans4 (the revised plans) make up part of the appellants’ appeal submission. The potential revisions include: (i) lowering the eaves by 3 brick courses (225mm); (ii) the replacement of the rear gables with dormer windows; (iii) the replacement of the front porch with a timber canopy and the addition of a rear porch canopy; and (iv) an alternative design for the outbuilding which includes a revised floor plan and M shape roof design. 4. The Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England5 makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and to try to ensure that no one with an interest in the outcome of the appeal is prejudiced, it is important that the plans considered at appeal stage are essentially the same as those considered and consulted upon by the Council at the planning application stage. This 1 Application reference P20/S4426/HH and P21/S2006/HH. 2 Application reference P24/S2888/HH. 3 Application reference P25/S1104/HH. 4 Drawing nos. 2417-23-A, 2717-20-C, 2417-22-D and 2417-21-E. 5 Paragraph 16.1 of the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England. Appeal Decision 6000769 2 importance is magnified in the case of a householder appeal. Indeed, the householder appeals service does not provide interested parties with the opportunity to submit written representations. 5. With reference to the substantive and procedural tests in Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) I consider that the potential revisions (iv) clearly amount to a new application and collectively potential revisions (i), (ii) and (iii) result in a substantially different scheme. As such the revised plans evolve and materially alter the scheme that was originally submitted, failing the substantive test. With regards to the procedural test, were I to accept the revisions and go back to parties, that consultation process would not be as comprehensive as that which the local planning authority are required to undertake as part of its determination. Consequently, I cannot be sure that all parties will have an opportunity to comment on the revisions, therefore were I to accept the revised plans and reconsult upon them, I cannot be sure that there would not be procedural unfairness to anyone who may wish to be involved. 6. Consequently, I do not accept the revised plans and shall consider the appeal based on the plans that were submitted to the Council for determination. Main Issue 7. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, giving special regard to the effect on the Chilterns National Landscape (CNL) formerly known as the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Reasons 8. The appeal property is a detached dwelling located in the small hamlet of Mays Green which is surrounded by open countryside and woodland. Mays Green falls within the CNL, an area designated for its landscape and scenic beauty. I am mindful of my statutory duties in respect of conserving and enhancing the CNL. 9. Policies DES1, DES2 and H20 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2035 (SOLP) and Policy SD3 of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan 2020‐2035 require developments to be of high design quality, to relate positively to the prevailing local character and to accord with design advice in the South Oxfordshire Design Guide. The South Oxfordshire Design Guide was adopted in June 2022 and is known as the ‘Supplementary Planning Document Joint Design Guide’ (JDG). It requires residential extensions and ancillary buildings to generally be subservient. Also, to ensure that front extensions and porches do not become a dominant architectural feature, it recommends they follow the same vernacular, material and detailing as the property. Scale and Mass 10. I accept that the footprint of the building is smaller in comparison with the consented scheme. However, in the absence of volumetric calculations, looking at the plans before me, I find that the additional eaves height of 0.6 to 0.8m to the front and 0.2 to 0.5m to the rear above that of the consented scheme would represent a significant departure from the property’s prevailing character. Appeal Decision 6000769 3 Consequently, the development would be unsympathetic to the original property being significantly bulkier in scale. 11. Accordingly, I find that the development would have an unacceptable scale and mass and would be disproportionate to the building which would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such would be contrary to Policies DES1, DES2 and H20 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2035 (SOLP) and Policy SD3 of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan 2020‐2035. Design 12. The appearance of the as built development would be generally improved by the proposal’s attempts to introduce character, particularly the eaves fascia, chimney stacks, quoins, window features and projecting gable detail to the side elevations. However, in the context of its high and long front and rear elevations, both elevations, although in particular the front elevation, would appear bland and monotonous and unsympathetic to the traditional vernacular of the hamlet. 13. I have considered the appellant’s evidence of other flat roof structures in the surrounding area and agree that this element is not in itself unusual locally. In this case, it appears that the larger flat roof is simply the consequence of the scheme’s higher eaves and a lower ridge in comparison to the consented scheme, and it is these departures from that consented design that are unsympathetic, rather than the flat roof per se. 14. With regards to the orangery, whilst it would have a more contemporary appearance than the consented scheme its matching materials ensure that it would not harm the appearance of the property. However, this is not the case for the proposed flat roofed front porch, which would be at odds with the pitched roof of the property and the other porches I saw in the area, including the dwelling’s original porch depicted in the Council’s delegated report. 15. Accordingly, I find that in terms of its design, the development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. As such it is contrary to Policies DES1, DES2 and H20 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2035 (SOLP) and Policy SD3 of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan 2020‐2035. Outbuilding 16. Although the pitched roof form of the outbuilding would appear subservient in the context of views of the property’s frontage, the flat built element would extend considerably beyond the narrow front elevation to the rear and side. As such, even with the benefit of dark timber cladding and new intervening planting, its lengthy east elevation would be a visually dominant and oppressive feature to users of the adjoining public footpath, with the outbuilding appearing overly large in the context of the dwelling. 17. Consequently, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the outbuilding would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with Policies DES1, DES2 and H20 of the SOLP and Policy SD3 of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan 2020‐2035. National Landscape Appeal Decision 6000769 4 18. Policy ENV1 of the SOLP seeks to conserve and enhance the CNL, stating development affecting its setting will only be permitted where it conserves, and where possible, enhances the designation’s character and natural beauty. 19. Whilst I have found above that there would be a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the local area, since the development relates to an existing property in an established hamlet which is largely screened by existing tree and woodland, that impact, would be localised. Furthermore, I find that the scale of the development is not substantial enough, despite its increase in size, to undermine the scenic qualities or beauty of the wider landscape designation. 20. On that basis, the proposal would not conflict with the general statutory duty or provisions of Policy ENV1 of the SOLP, which attaches great weight to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in the CNL. Conclusion 21. In terms of its detailed design and appearance, the appeal development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies DES1, DES2 and H20 of the SOLP and Policy SD3 of the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan 2020‐2035. The compliance of the scheme with Policy ENV1 of the SOLP and the other considerations that have been cited in support of the appeal, including the sedum green roof, do not outweigh this finding. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. SE Hughes INSPECTOR