A builder’s appeal against an enforcement notice to clear land beside a Grade II Listed Building has been thrown out.

This means that the original enforcement notice issued by Buckinghamshire Council for 35 The Green, Wooburn Green has been upheld.

The notice demanded that unauthorised skips, storage containers, fencing and an access gate be removed from the land, which is located in Wooburn Conservation Area.

It also said that external storage on the land must cease, and all building materials and debris must also be cleared from the site.

The appeal against the notice was made by Mr R Potyka of RAP Building and Developments Ltd, who now has three months to comply with the notice.

READ MORE: Sam Mendes submits development plans for Buckinghamshire house

The former property on the land at 35 The Green was demolished after planning permission was approved in 2017.

Since the demolition of the house, the land has been used as storage for a local plumber and as an area to store skips.

Planning inspector M. P. Howell, who visited the site on June 12, noted in their rejection of the appeal the ‘harm’ caused to the surrounding area.

They said: “The benefits outlined above do not outweigh the harm I have identified, which results in a significant conflict with development plan policies that protect the character and appearance of an area, the heritage assets and neighbours’ living conditions.”

The land at number 35 is next door to Clematis Cottage, 36 The Green, a Grade II Listed Building that dates to the early nineteenth century.

The historic whitewashed brick cottage features dentil eaves, an old tile roof, a brick chimney and sash windows.

READ MORE: Famous Bucks properties currently on the market

Inspector Howell said in their report that the land at number 35 is at odds with other houses surrounding the green, several of which are significant or Listed.

They said: “Consequently, despite being small scale, the use of land for external storage, as well as the stationing of skips and storage containers is not typical of its immediate surroundings or is in keeping with the predominant character of the area.”

The inspector noted that the development does create jobs and economic prosperity but said the appellant had not outlined the scale of these benefits.

They added: “The number of jobs created and the ongoing economic benefits to the area would be limited.”

The inspector’s report also found that the use of the land ‘gives rise to an increased level of noise and disturbance for neighbours’, especially the immediate neighbours at numbers 34 and 36.

It was also noted that vehicles at the site were forced to reverse out into a busy road due to the placement of skips and storage containers.