Geri Halliwell and husband Christian Horner make second bid to save lots of their ‘unlawful’ pergola from being torn down after council ruling

Geri and Christian Horner have submitted a second planning application to retain an ‘illegally’ built pergola – after their previous retrospective application was turned down after numerous complaints.

The couple’s building work at their Grade II listed Oxfordshire home has irked neighbours over the years and their bid to keep an oak framed pergola and gazebo in the back garden was refused by West Northamptonshire Council.

Enforcement action could see them forcibly be removed with the unauthorised developments spoiling views of a neighbouring historic church.

This time around the couple have applied only for the pergola to stay. It’s unclear whether they have, or intend, to remove the gazebo.

Their planning application makes no reference to the previous refusal, but states that they’ve received pre-application advice, which suggests they’re confident of it being permitted.

They claim to have added ‘climbing and structural planting’ around the pergola to ’soften the appearance’ and ‘reducing its visual impact’.

Their design statement adds: ‘The proposal has been carefully designed to ensure that it remains clearly subordinate to the main house and does not result in harm to its significance or setting. The pergola is freestanding and lightweight in form, constructed from natural oak.

‘The use of oak reflects traditional garden structures and ensures the proposal sits comfortably within a historic landscape context. The open nature of the pergola avoids the introduction of built mass and ensures that key views of the house and garden are retained.’

The slate roof of the pergola is visible from the road outside Geri and Christian’s property

Geri Halliwell and husband Christian Horner’s building work at their Grade II listed Oxfordshire home has irked neighbours over the years and their bid to keep an oak framed pergola and gazebo in the back garden was refused by West Northamptonshire Coun

Planning official Forrest Childs said in his decision notice refusing retrospective permission that the unauthorised developments had spoilt the view ‘to and from’ the church (pictured) 

Planning official Forrest Childs wrote in their delegated report to refuse the original retrospective application: ‘Both structures [gazebo and pergola] are located between the grade II listed house and grade I listed Church.

‘The Conservation Officer has raised concerns over the scale, appearance and positioning of the pergola.

‘Whilst noted as well-constructed the pergola lies in direct sight of the church when viewed from this garden area to the east of the house and detracts from views of the church which is Grade I listed and therefore impacts its setting.

‘The Grade I listed church was considered to have an unspoilt immediate setting prior to the construction of these buildings.’

The pergola was built to the east of a previously approved swimming pool against the boundary wall and was described as an ‘open framed oak beam structure.’

The gazebo, to the north east of the pool was also made from oak supporting beams with a pyramidal slate roof.

Mr Childs added: ‘The gazebo sits around 1.3m above the boundary wall and is visible from the public realm.

‘The pergola sits marginally below the boundary wall and cannot be viewed from the public realm, however, is prominent within the immediate setting of the listed dwelling.’

Plans show the pergola was built to the east of a previously approved swimming pool against the boundary wall and was described as an ‘open framed oak beam structure’

Outlining the reason for refusal, he added: ‘The proposed development, by reason its size, positioning and appearance, would result in an unacceptable form of development, and would be considered an unsympathetic addition within the curtilage of the listed building.’

Several neighbours also submitted objections on the application.

One wrote: ‘This has already been built, along with a sauna block higher than the wall which in a conservation area is unacceptable.’

Another neighbour wrote: ‘The council would have been onsite to know this construction has been built for at least four months when signing off a swimming pool and other construction.

‘Questions need to be asked and answered. Somehow, a 30 foot long pergola was missed.’

Another neighbour also questioned why action hadn’t been taken sooner to stop the development and added: ‘This was once a beautiful quaint property and plot in this conservation area.

‘Where are you inspectors, or do the rules not apply here?’

Also, objecting to the scheme was the council’s heritage and conservation team, who said: ‘Whilst well-constructed the pergola lies in direct sight of the church when viewed from this garden area to the east of the house and detracts from views of the church which Grade I listed and therefore impacts is setting.’

The heritage team added: ‘It is worth also noting a pizza oven has been constructed in red brick with flue.

‘Based on its construction I would consider this development.

‘This flue is also visible over the wall and which cumulatively is considered to have a harmful impact of the setting of the listed building.’