Geri Halliwell-Horner has successfully navigated a planning dispute with her neighbors, gaining approval to retain a controversial pergola at her lavish £9.2 million mansion.
The former Spice Girl, alongside her husband, Christian Horner, a former team principal for Red Bull Formula One, faced backlash from local residents after constructing an oak-framed pergola and gazebo in their garden without the necessary planning permissions.
Initially, their bid for retrospective planning permission was rejected. However, a recent application concerning the pergola has been granted approval on their Grade II listed property, leaving the fate of the gazebo still uncertain.
Neighbors had expressed concerns that the couple’s additions were disrupting the ‘tranquility’ of their Oxfordshire village and obstructing the picturesque view of a nearby church.
The situation escalated when the couple, Geri, 53, and Christian, 52, adorned the pergola with fairy lights, prompting some residents to feel they were being ‘trolled.’ Accusations arose that the couple’s celebrity status was influencing council decisions in their favor.
Local council planners justified their decision by stating they would be ‘sympathetic’ to the structure due to its ‘siting, scale, and design,’ noting that it aligns with the existing character and appearance of residences in the area.
The planning official added the proposal ‘would provide adequate standards of amenity and privacy’ for neighbours.
They continued: ‘The council heritage response confirms that the oak-framed pergola, when covered with planting such as wisteria, represents a traditional garden feature that can be sympathetic to the character of the site.’
The slate roof of the pergola is visible from the road outside of Geri Halliwell-Horner and husband Christian Horner’s property
Geri and Christian’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
Despite metal ‘historically being more typical’ for a pergola, the wooden version was ‘considered capable of integrating into the setting without causing harm, provided it remains appropriately screened’.
The pergola is visible to passers-by over a towering garden wall that circles the house, which the council ruled ‘would not impact key views nor alter the established relationship between the listed building and the church’.
It concluded: ‘As the pergola would not be visible above the garden wall and does not introduce visually prominent or incongruous elements, the proposal is considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.’
The couple sparked fresh local anger after resubmitting plans for the pergola in January.
One neighbour accused them of ‘rubbing our nose’ in it by wrapping fairy lights around the outdoor structure, showing a ‘complete disregard’ for regulations.
They claimed it highlights ‘the level of injustice and inequality shown between the super wealthy and the average person’.
The neighbour, who asked to remain anonymous, said: ‘The pergola and wooden gazebo that were refused in retrospective planning permission still exist, and are being used with fairy lights on top.
‘If that is not rubbing our noses in it and showing complete disregard for the planning permission I don’t know what is.
‘Any ordinary person would have been forced to tear it all down.’
In the now approved application, a representative for the couple said the oak-framed pergola with integrated planting was ‘intended to provide a modest and visually sensitive garden structure that preserved the character and setting of the host property’.
They claimed the proposal, planned by Riach Architects, had 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.’
It was also said climber plants will be wrapped around the pergola in order to ‘soften the appearance of the structure over time, reducing its visual impact and reinforcing its role as a garden feature rather than a building’.
The statement added: ‘This approach responds directly to planning advice seeking enhanced landscape integration.
‘The pergola is located to avoid any impact on the fabric of [the house] and requires minimal ground intervention.
‘As a reversible structure, it preserves the long-term integrity of the heritage asset while supporting the practical enjoyment of the garden.
‘In summary, the pergola represents a modest and sympathetic intervention that preserves the character and setting of [the house] and accords with local and national planning policies.’
The pergola sits near the previously approved swimming pool and was described as an ‘open framed oak beam structure’.
The gazebo was also made from oak supporting beams, complete with a pyramidal slate roof.
The couple’s recent application adds another chapter to a long history of disputes with neighbours over the years.
The pair – who own a horse racing company named OMBI – are currently waiting as an application to build a horse walker at their stables is considered by the council.
While last year they were granted permission to build a second pool on the grounds, despite fears it would be a ‘blot on the landscape’.
The applications follow the council’s approval three years ago to build a first floor extension, a replacement barn and a new greenhouse.
This has left neigbhbours exhausted with the continuous stream of ‘industrial sized’ developments at the property, adding they ‘do not represent what a conservation area is supposed to be’.
They said: ‘The local village is not better for it in many ways and there are many disgruntled residents. The noise levels of construction are on a daily basis.
‘It would be fair to say the landscape is no richer for the input of Mr Horner.’
They added footpaths are being ‘swallowed up’, which is ‘subjecting the public to unsightly combinations of oversized barns, reduced hedges, horse jumps, horse barriers and the frequent flying around on their land of noisy quad motorbikes disturbing local neighbours’.
