Formation of a new dropped kerb to facilitate safe vehicular access

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by Jonathan Edwards BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 September 2026 Appeal A: Appeal Ref: 6008639 5 Road Running Through Nuneham Courtenay, Nuneham Courtenay, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX44 9NX • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Jungho Shin against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is P25/S3898/LB. • The works proposed are the formation of a new dropped kerb to facilitate safe vehicular access. Within the front garden, a modest driveway surfaced in permeable gravel is proposed. Appeal B: Appeal Ref: 6009013 5 Road Running Through Nuneham Courtenay, Nuneham Courtenay, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX44 9NX • 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 Jungho Shin against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is P25/S3897/HH. • The development proposed is the formation of a new dropped kerb to facilitate safe vehicular access. Within the front garden, a modest driveway surfaced in permeable gravel is proposed. Decisions Appeal A 1. Appeal A is allowed and listed building consent is granted for the formation of a new dropped kerb to facilitate safe vehicular access. Within the front garden, a modest driveway surfaced in permeable gravel is proposed at 5 Road Running Through Nuneham Courtenay, Nuneham Courtenay, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX44 9NX in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P25/S3898/LB, subject to the following conditions:- 1) The works authorised by this consent shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this consent. 2) The works hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans: Existing site plan numbered S258-001, Proposed site plan also numbered S258-001, CellPave 40 Product Leaflet, LOC-002 and S258-006 Rev D. Appeal B 2. Appeal B is allowed and planning permission is granted for formation of a new dropped kerb to facilitate safe vehicular access. Within the front garden, a modest driveway surfaced in permeable gravel is proposed at 5 Road Running Through Appeal Decisions 6008639 and 6009013 2 Nuneham Courtenay, Nuneham Courtenay, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX44 9NX in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P25/S3897/HH, subject to the following conditions:- 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans: Existing site plan numbered S258-001, Proposed site plan also numbered S258-001, CellPave 40 Product Leaflet, LOC-002 and S258-006 Rev D. Preliminary Matters 3. The appeals concern the same site and the same scheme. The remit of the regimes for planning permission (Appeal B) and listed building consent (Appeal A) are different. However, I have dealt with both appeals together in a single decision letter to avoid repetition. 4. The dwelling at the appeal site forms one half of a grade II listed building, 5 and 6, A423 (hereafter referred to as the LB). The site also lies within the Nuneham Courtenay Conservation Area (the CA). In reaching my decisions, I have attached considerable importance to the statutory duties under sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). 5. Since the LB was listed, the road outside the appeal property has been renamed from the A423 to the A4074. From here onwards, I refer to the road as the A4074. 6. Plans originally submitted with the applications leading to these appeals show the provision of a new tarmac driveway across the roadside grass verge to the edge of the appeal property. However, the Council has based its decisions on a revised plan that show instead the provision of 2 access strips with retained grass in between. My assessment of these appeals is made on the same basis. 7. For both appeals, I have been provided with a drawing numbered S258-006 revision D that shows the proposed elevations of the house at the appeal site. This plan shows the erection of a new fence and gates across the proposed access. Like the Council, I have treated this as part of the proposed development and works. The same drawing also indicates new windows and new French doors in the rear or west facing elevation of the house. The appellant has explained that the works to provide these windows do not form part of the development or the works subject to these appeals. My assessments are made on this basis and my decisions relate only to the development and the works subject of these appeals. 8. I am advised that a Joint Local Plan for South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse is currently being prepared. However, this does not form part of the current development plan and from the submissions I am uncertain whether its policies are subject to outstanding objections. Therefore, the emerging document attracts very limited weight in my consideration of these appeals. 9. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been issued since the appeal was lodged. The provisions of the new version of the Framework on conserving and enhancing the historic environment are similar to Appeal Decisions 6008639 and 6009013 3 those in the previous version. As such, no injustice would be caused by determining these appeals without seeking the parties’ views on the Framework. Main Issues 10. Having regard to the Council’s refusal reasons, the main issues for appeal B are (i) whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, and (ii) whether it would preserve the setting and significance of the LB. For appeal A, the main issue is whether the proposed works would preserve the LB, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Reasons The effect on the character and appearance of the CA (appeal B). 11. The CA covers an area centred around Nuneham Estate. The appeal property lies towards the edge of the CA within the village of Nuneham Courtenay. The village has an interesting history as it replaced a previous medieval village that was removed to allow the 1st Earl Harcourt to create a private landscaped setting to a mansion. The settlement as a whole has been deliberately designed with significant input from the Earl. Nuneham Courtenay is of significant historical importance as it is one of only two remaining examples in England of a completely planned Georgian village. 12. The houses on both sides of the road are largely pairs of semi-detached cottages with gardens to the side and the rear. The layout and design of the dwellings contain a significant level of symmetry and consistency that illustrate the planned background to the village. This is readily apparent as you travel along the A4074 as the houses tend to be built on the edge of the pavement without front gardens. Also, the road is straight and it is fairly open with pavements, grassed verges and parking or bus stop laybys on both sides. Therefore, the CA’s significance is also partly derived from the visual attractiveness of the village and the appreciation from the highway of the original form and architectural features of many of the houses. 13. The appeal property is semi-detached and closely reflects the street appearance of the attached dwelling. The house has been extended to the rear but the side garden space and a large part of the rear garden remains undeveloped. Therefore, the appeal property contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA as it appears consistent with the style and pattern of other residences. It also helps illustrate the unusual history and development of the village. 14. The ribbon tracks across the grass verge to the front of the appeal property would be constructed from a grass reinforced cellular system. Nonetheless, they would be clearly seen when on the road and from nearby properties. However, the tracks would maintain the openness of the verge as well as views of the appeal property and other residences along the street. The crossover would be a new feature that was not included as part of the original design of the village. However, several vehicular accesses across the verges already exist at other places along the road. These include the crossovers in front of the house that adjoins the appeal property and to the house directly opposite the appeal site. Consequently, the proposed vehicular access across the verge would not be unusual. Appeal Decisions 6008639 and 6009013 4 15. Also, the grass verge along the street is fragmented due to the presence of laybys. A bus stop pull in area on the same side of the road already causes a marked gap in the verge near to the appeal site. In light of this immediate context, the minor loss of greenery as a result of the proposed ribbon tracks would have a negligible effect on the visual qualities and historic interest of the street scene. 16. The proposed gates and fence to the front of the side garden would be low key in appearance. They would also be similar to the existing pedestrian gate at the front of the appeal property and to boundary features at other nearby dwellings. As such, the fence and gates would be compatible with the locality. Moreover, the proposed side gravel drive would be similar to that at the residence attached to the appeal property and so it would reinforce a sense of symmetry in the pair of houses. The gravel area to the side and rear would replace an area of paving slabs and bare ground rather than any planted areas and so the proposal would not reduce the level of greenery on the appeal site. 17. The properties in the village are all subject to a legal agreement that restricts works such as the laying of hardstanding and erecting fences and gates. The Council’s guide on this legal agreement states that the rigorous protection of the uniformity of the historic village is a guiding principle. At the same time, the guide states permission will not be unreasonably withheld and it recognises the village is a living community which needs to adapt to modern life. In this case, the development would not undermine the appeal property’s contribution to the uniformity of the buildings within the village nor its street scene. In light of existing nearby features, the proposal would cause no meaningful harm to the integrity of the historic planned village and how this is appreciated from the road. 18. Therefore, I conclude the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. In these regards, it would accord with section 72(1) of the Act and policies DES1, DES2, ENV6 and ENV8 of the South Oxfordshire District Council Local Plan 2020 (the LP). Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development respects the local context and conserves the special interest of conservation areas. Effects on the LB (both appeals) 19. The LB consists of a pair of semi-detached cottages dating from the mid-17th century. It is of historic interest as it formed part of the original planned village. The front elevations of the houses also retain a significant degree of symmetry in form and design that is attractive and consistent with the other properties in the village. Therefore, the significance of the LB is partly derived from its architectural and aesthetic values as well as its contribution towards the village houses as a group of historic buildings of a similar age and design. 20. The proposed drop kerb and ribbon tracks would be seen from the street in front of the LB and so they would affect its setting. However, these new features would be at ground level and would be seen in the same context as the busy A4074 and the nearby bus layby. Therefore, they would not harm the appreciation of the LB nor detract from its significance. 21. The proposed fence and gates would also be seen alongside the LB and so they would affect its setting. However, these would be low-key and maintain clear sight of the side elevation of the appeal property. Also, the fence and gates would provide an appropriate and sympathetic demarcation of the boundaries to the Appeal Decisions 6008639 and 6009013 5 appeal site. As such, the effect of these features on the setting of the LB would avoid harm to its significance. 22. The proposed gravel areas to the side and rear of the appeal property would not obstruct views of the LB but they would change the appearance of its immediate setting. A significant part of the garden would be affected but I saw the gravel would replace square concrete paving slabs and bare earth rather than areas of vegetation or surfacing of any historic or aesthetic value. Therefore, the gravel areas would preserve the setting and the significance of the LB. 23. The plans indicate the removal of an existing pedestrian gate that is attached to the side of the house. The gate is of no particular architectural or historic interest, although it is of an appropriate height and style for its context. The new gates and fence would adjoin the LB and would be similar in appearance to the existing gate. The works to the LB would be minor in nature and they would not affect any architectural features of note on the building. 24. For these reasons, I conclude the development proposed under appeal B, and that the works proposed under appeal A, would not harm the setting nor the significance of the LB nor any features of special architectural and historic interest that it possesses. In these regards, the development would accord with LP policies ENV6 and ENV7 which together look to ensure that development within the setting of a listed building is sympathetic and retains its special interest. Moreover, I find the proposed works would not conflict with sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Act. Reference is made to LP policy ENV8 in the Council’s refusal reason for the listed building consent application but this contains no provisions relevant to this matter. Conditions 25. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have imposed conditions that specify the approved plans for reasons of clarity. I have amended the list to omit reference to plans that have been superseded by revised drawings to ensure the list reflects the plans that formed the basis of the Council’s and my decisions. There is no need for separate conditions on materials to be used as information on these is set out on the specified plans and documents. Conclusion – for both appeals 26. For the above reasons, I conclude that appeal A and appeal B should be allowed. Jonathan Edwards INSPECTOR