Planning permission problems have dogged the couple’s attempts to improve their Grade II-listed mansion in Oxfordshire.
Projects meant to enhance the property – including new stables, garden buildings, and gates – have sparked objections, delays, and even retrospective applications.
Controversial stables ignite neighbour complaints
One of the earliest flashpoints involved plans to build new stables and equestrian facilities.
Neighbours voiced strong objections, describing the development as “hideous” and claiming it spoiled the rural views and village atmosphere.
There were even reports that the construction interfered with mobile phone reception in parts of the village.
While the council eventually granted permission, it came with firm restrictions: the stables must only serve private horse care, banning commercial uses like riding lessons or events, and lighting had to be carefully controlled to protect the countryside’s tranquillity.
Pergola and gazebo built without permission
More recently, the couple faced criticism for erecting an oak-framed pergola and gazebo in the garden without seeking prior planning permission.
Such works require listed building consent on Grade-II properties within conservation areas, making the omission a significant oversight.
In response, a retrospective planning application was submitted in an attempt to regularise the situation. However, if permission is denied, the structures could be ordered to be dismantled, posing both a financial and reputational risk.
Gate adjustments hit snags
Attempts to relocate and replace timber gates at the property have been another sticking point.
An initial application was refused due to concerns about road safety and the impact on the historic setting.
However, after revisions and consultations, the council eventually approved a modified proposal that moved the gates further back to provide a safer waiting area for vehicles.
Swimming pool provokes strong local reaction
Plans for a large outdoor swimming pool sparked vocal opposition from neighbours, particularly because of its proximity to the village church.
One resident described the proposal as “the height of disrespect,” worrying that noise and activity might disrupt funeral services.
The council reviewed the concerns alongside heritage protections, recommending archaeological surveys to safeguard any buried remains before granting permission.
The pool project remains one of the more contentious additions to the estate, reflecting the delicate balance between lifestyle desires and community sensitivities.
