For the: Creation of a Driveway Entrance, section of the existing wall will be re-opened to allow for the installation of a 3-metre-wide, 5-bar gate to provide access to the driveway. Retaining Wall: A stone-clad retaining wall will be constructed inside the property to support the driveway Verge Modifications: The verge will be opened up and tapered with a gentle sweep on both sides into the driveway. Steps Installation: Steps will be installed in the northwest corner of the driveway to provide access to the house. (Amended plans received 28 July 2025)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 January 2026 by M Aqbal BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000984 14 Mill Lane, Great Haseley, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX44 7JU • 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 Hamish Blythe against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is P25/S0267/HH. • The development proposed is for the: Creation of a Driveway Entrance, section of the existing wall will be re-opened to allow for the installation of a 3-metre-wide, 5-bar gate to provide access to the driveway. Retaining Wall: A stone-clad retaining wall will be constructed inside the property to support the driveway Verge Modifications: The verge will be opened up and tapered with a gentle sweep on both sides into the driveway. Steps Installation: Steps will be installed in the northwest corner of the driveway to provide access to the house. (Amended plans received 28 July 2025). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. The description of the proposed works on the application form is unnecessarily detailed. As such, in the interests of brevity and for the purposes of my Decision, I have relied on the description provided by the Council in its decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance, including the Great Haseley Conservation Area (‘CA’) and the setting of a Grade II Listed building. Reasons 4. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act highlights the need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building. Section 72(1) of the same act imposes a requirement that special attention should be paid to the desirability that the character or appearance of the conservation area should be preserved or enhanced. The National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) requires me to assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset). 5. From my observations, and as described in the Great Haseley Conservation Area Character Appraisal (‘the Character Appraisal’) the Great Haseley CA is defined by its historic rural village character, shaped by a compact settlement core, gently curving lanes, and a strong relationship with the surrounding countryside. Its identity is anchored by St Peters Church and the Manor House on Church Hill, with Appeal Decision 6000984 2 traditional cottages, stone walls, mature trees and open paddocks reinforcing its long established form. The consistent use of local materials such as stone, thatch and clay tiles contributes to its architectural coherence, creating a distinctive and well preserved environment. 6. The Character Appraisal recognises the positive contribution made by the stone walls throughout the village, particularly those along Rectory Road and Mill Lane. This includes the walls associated with the appeal site, which now form an integral part of this established visual and historic character. 7. As such, the significance of the Great Haseley CA relates to its history, architecture and the arrangement of its buildings with the latter being complemented by sections of stone walling. 8. The appeal property, Mill Cottage (‘the Cottage’) is a Grade II listed early‑18th‑century thatched cottage, notable for its tall brick stacks and limestone rubble construction, and valued as a strong example of rural vernacular architecture. It occupies a generous plot defined by a substantial stone boundary wall, which forms a prominent and traditional feature of the Rectory Road street scene and contributes positively to the visual and historic character of the Great Haseley CA. Owing to its physical, visual and historic relationship with the Cottage, the stone wall is part of the boundary to this listed building and is therefore part of its setting. 9. The stone walls scale, alignment and close relationship with the highway make it a defining feature of the Great Haseley CA, providing a coherent setting for the Cottage and reinforcing the historic grain of the area. 10. The proposal seeks to remove a section of this stone boundary wall along the southern edge of the appeal site, contiguous with Rectory Road, and to introduce a new access, associated level changes to accommodate a hard surfaced parking area. 11. The appellant has submitted historic material, including old maps and local recollections, suggesting that an opening may once have existed in the southern boundary wall to serve a former barn on the plot. 12. While this information provides helpful background, it does not demonstrate that the proposed opening, level changes or parking area have any meaningful historic precedent. In a Conservation Area, one of the key considerations is its present character, and the existing stone boundary wall, regardless of its precise age, is now a defining and positive feature. Removing part of it and introducing a modern parking area would cause clear and lasting harm to both the Conservation Area and the setting of the Cottage, without reinstating any historically meaningful arrangement. 13. Even if an opening once existed, the current wall and ground levels have long since become part of the established historic fabric. Removing surviving historic features to recreate a speculative former configuration is not conservation; it is selective reconstruction that would result in a net loss to the Conservation Areas significance. 14. The removal of part of the stone boundary wall, together with the proposed level changes and introduction of a modern driveway, would erode the historic sense of Appeal Decision 6000984 3 enclosure, disrupt the natural topography and weaken the established character of Rectory Road. The resulting hard surfaced parking area would introduce a modern domestic feature that bears no resemblance to any historic access arrangement and would sit uncomfortably within its historic surroundings. 15. Taken together, these interventions would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of the Great Haseley CA and to the setting of the listed Cottage. In Framework terms, this harm would be less than substantial. 16. The Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, and that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, including through development within its setting, requires clear and convincing justification. Where less than substantial harm is identified, it must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 17. The appellant suggests that the proposal would reduce informal verge side parking along the southern boundary. However, such occasional parking is a modest and typical feature of rural lanes. It neither defines the character of the area nor contributes to its significance. Any reduction in this activity amounts to a very limited public benefit and cannot justify the permanent loss of historic fabric. Highway inconvenience is not a recognised basis for permitting harm to designated heritage assets and therefore attracts negligible weight. 18. The appellant also refers to emergency‑service access, but no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the current arrangement is unsafe or that a single new driveway would materially improve matters. If emergency access were genuinely compromised, this should be addressed through highway regulations and enforcement, not through the removal of historic boundary fabric. This alleged benefit therefore carries minimal weight 19. The ability to install an Electric Vehicle (‘EV’) charger is not wholly dependent on creating a new access or driveway. Numerous alternatives exist for properties in historic areas, including community charging hubs and cable management systems. While national and local policy encourages EV uptake, it does not do so at the expense of heritage significance. This consideration therefore attracts very limited weight. 20. Letters from neighbours are noted, but public support and opinion cannot override the statutory requirement to give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets. 21. The appellant argues that the former 1980s garage is too small for modern vehicles, but this does not justify the demolition of boundary walling elsewhere on the site. Many historic garages are modest in scale yet remain functional for smaller vehicles, motorcycles or cycles. The conversion of this garage reflects the appellants own choices rather than any inherent limitation. Irrespective, personal convenience carries very limited weight. 22. In this case, the benefits put forward are not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the identified harm, particularly given the great weight national policy requires to be afforded to heritage conservation. Appeal Decision 6000984 4 23. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies DES1 and DES2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (‘LP’) as it would neither respect the established local character nor reinforce the positive townscape qualities that define this part of the village. 24. It also conflicts 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 would also run contrary to the aims of the Framework in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Other Matters 25. I acknowledge the design measures incorporated into the proposal, including the use of a traditional gate design and stone for the internal retaining wall. However, these adjustments do not address the heritage harm I have identified, nor do they overcome the overall resulting conflict with the development plan. Conclusion 26. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. M Aqbal INSPECTOR