Removal of a small section of boundary wall and creation of new vehicular crossing to create private access to the application site

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 June 2026 by R Pankhurst Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005908 Sunnyside House, West Edge, Marsh Gibbon, Buckinghamshire, OX27 0HA • 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 James Lippett against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/25/3281/FA. • The development proposed is removal of a small section of boundary wall and creation of new vehicular crossing to create private access to the application site. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. A different Heritage Statement was submitted by the appellant with their appeal statement. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England sets out that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage. 4. The new Heritage Statement does not change the proposed development but is a significantly more detailed assessment than was submitted at application stage and contains material new information. As the appeal is proceeding under the Householder appeal process, there has been no provision for the Council or interested parties to comment on the new information. Consequently, it would prejudice other parties to the appeal if I were to consider that document. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the information that was before the Council when it made its decision, and do not accept the new Heritage Statement. 5. The most recent iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was published in August 2026. With regard to the main issues of the appeal, the relevant policies are not materially different from the previous iteration of the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that I can proceed without further consultation with the main parties since, with the above in mind, their respective cases would not be prejudiced. Appeal Decision 6005908 2 Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Marsh Gibbon Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The Marsh Gibbon Conservation Area Appraisal (the appraisal) published in December 2008 explains that the character of the CA varies across the village, with a close-knit area of informally grouped cottages and farm buildings at Townsend, a historic central core focused around Church Street, Castle Street and West Edge, and a more open rural character at its eastern end. The appeal site lies within the central part of the CA, which is characterised by its informal historic layout, traditional stone-built development, extensive stone boundary walls and mature landscaping. Together, these elements create an attractive rural streetscape that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA. 8. The boundary wall of the appeal property is a notable feature within the street scene and forms part of the network of stone boundary walls the appraisal identifies as an important component of the CA. Its visual prominence, particularly at the road junction, contributes to the cohesive appearance of the local area and helps frame views of the buildings beyond. 9. The wall also forms part of the setting of the Grade II listed buildings nearby, including the Greyhound Public House, Fleur de Lys and Squirrels Thatch, all of which are experienced in conjunction with this and numerous other stone boundary walls when viewed from the public realm. The traditional limestone wall complements the materials, scale and historic character of these heritage assets and contributes to the attractive and unified townscape in which they are situated. Consequently, the wall makes a positive contribution to the setting of the listed buildings and the character and appearance of the CA, and thereby to the significance of these heritage assets. 10. Although the section of the boundary wall to be removed would be relatively modest in length, the significance of the wall derives not only from its materials and appearance but also from its continuity as a historic boundary feature, reflective of its enclosure of the former farmyard. Therefore, while some parts have been rebuilt relatively recently, this does not diminish the heritage value of the wall. The creation of a gap in the wall to create another vehicular access would interrupt this continuous section of boundary wall. It would also introduce another access point in a prominent location, close to the existing access to The Stonehouse. As a result, the frontage would appear more fragmented and less cohesive than it does now. This would detract from the positive contribution that the wall makes to the character and appearance of the CA. 11. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Given my findings above, the proposed removal of a section of boundary wall and creation of new vehicular crossing would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Given its modest scale in relation to the wider CA, the harm to the significance of the CA as a whole would be limited.. Appeal Decision 6005908 3 12. Section 66(1) of the Act requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. In this case, the removal of a section of the wall would not materially alter the way in which the nearby listed buildings are experienced, as they would still be seen in conjunction with numerous stone boundary walls. The proposal would not therefore adversely affect the setting, and thereby the significance, of the listed buildings. 13. Nevertheless, the harm I have identified to the CA is a matter which I give considerable importance and weight. The Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal. 14. Whilst the proposal would provide the appellant with greater privacy, convenience and an independent means of access, these are private benefits that would primarily accrue to the occupiers of the property. I have seen no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would deliver wider public benefits. In particular, there is insufficient evidence before me to conclude that the creation of an additional access would result in any meaningful improvement to surveillance of the junction or otherwise benefit the wider public. Consequently, there are no public benefits that would outweigh the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the CA. 15. Accordingly, the proposed removal of a section of the boundary wall would harm the character and appearance of the Marsh Gibbon Conservation Area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 (September 2021) which requires development to contribute to heritage values and local distinctiveness. It would also conflict with the heritage policies of the Framework. Other Matters 16. I have noted the appellant's concerns regarding the level of engagement that took place during the determination of the application. However, whether further discussions could or should have occurred is not a matter that goes to the planning merits of the proposal. Therefore, this does not outweigh the harm discussed. 17. I have taken account of the appellant’s claimed benefits, including the provision of independent access, improved residential amenity and increased surveillance of the junction. However, for the reasons already given, I have afforded limited weight to these benefits. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that any perceived difficulties associated with the existing access arrangements could not be addressed through alternative means that would avoid the identified harm. Consequently, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the CA. 18. I acknowledge no objections were raised by the Parish Council, the Highway Authority or neighbouring residents. However, the absence of objections does not indicate that a proposal is acceptable in planning terms. Conclusion and Recommendation 19. The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the benefits of the proposal, that justify granting permission. The benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed by its Appeal Decision 6005908 4 adverse effects. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. R Pankhurst APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 20. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR