Appeal 6001713

The appeal is dismissed.

On my site visit I observed that four storage containers had been placed on the land. Three of those containers (containers 1, 2 and 4) appeared to have been positioned as indicated on the submitted plans1. However, the 10’ container (container 3) appeared to have been positioned in a slightly different location from that shown on the plans. I have considered the appeal based on what I saw on site and, where necessary, the submitted plans.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to land used in association with [name]. The site is split into two parcels separated by [address]. One parcel contains a sports field with one rugby pitch, spectator railings and a single-storey, detached storage building constructed from buff-coloured stone. Landscaping of varying type, size and density is located along the site boundaries of the field. Two-storey, residential properties on [address] and [address], which have buff-coloured stone elevations, can be seen through and between the landscaping. Notwithstanding the presence of landscaping along the roadside boundaries, there are consistent open views across the field from the adjacent streets.

The second parcel contains the clubhouse, which is a single storey building with buff-coloured stone elevations and a hipped roof. Car parking is located to the front 1 As indicated on the Existing Site Plan (Ref: 1790-01) and Proposed Site Plan (Ref: 1790-02) and side of this building. Adjacent to the clubhouse car park are hard surfaced sports pitches enclosed by tall mesh fencing. To the rear of the clubhouse is a cricket pitch, located behind a mature vegetated boundary.

Containers 1 and 2 are located towards one corner of the sports field. Containers 3 and 4 would both be sited on the car park adjacent to the clubhouse. All storage containers are of utilitarian design, with metal fabrication and finished in a dark green colour. The containers have a characteristically industrial appearance.

Containers 1 and 2 are positioned some distance from the adjacent streets, however the open nature of the field means that they are clearly visible from public vantage points. They are also positioned some distance from the existing storage building on the field. This detached siting means that they have a poor visual relationship with existing built form on the field. This isolation, along with their industrial appearance and form, means that they appear out of keeping within an otherwise verdant setting.

I visited the site at a time of year when the trees were not in leaf. As such, the containers could be viewed against the backdrop of the buff-coloured elevations of the adjacent dwellings. The utilitarian design and appearance of the containers results in a stark visual contrast with this built form. This contrast only served to heighten the prominence and incongruity of these containers. I accept that this heightened prominence would not be throughout the year and, when the adjacent trees are in leaf, the visual prominence may be reduced to some extent. Albeit, due to the gaps between the vegetation, it is likely that some visual contrast would remain.

Additional landscaping may also help to reduce this visual effect to some degree. However, I do not have a detailed scheme before me and, therefore, I do not have the evidence to be persuaded that the harmful visual effects from the surrounding streets could be mitigated. In any event, additional landscaping would not overcome the poor siting of the containers.

There are glimpsed views of these containers between properties on [address]. Due to their siting and scale, the containers could also be seen from neighbouring properties2. From these vantage points the containers are seen as an industrial addition, projecting above the boundary fences, clearly contrasting with their soft landscaped surroundings.

Containers 3 and 4 would be sited adjacent to the clubhouse on the existing car park. While positioned close to the landscaped rear boundary, the shallow depth of the plot means that there would be direct and exposed open views across the car park. This would make the containers highly visible from [address]. As such, they would not be discretely sited. The utilitarian design and industrial appearance of these containers means that they would visually contrast with the appearance of the adjacent stone clubhouse. Therefore, these containers would appear as incongruous and prominent additions within the street scene.

Furthermore, the provision of four containers across the two parcels would cumulatively add visual clutter of inappropriate design and appearance within the visual context of the area. 2

I recognise that the storage containers play an important role in supporting the site’s operations, and this is a clear benefit of the development. However, I have not been provided with evidence to demonstrate that their current siting represents the most appropriate or least visually harmful arrangement. As a result, the limited benefit they offer does not outweigh the permanent harm caused to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has cited two recent decisions for similar development in the Council area. I do not have full details of these proposals. However, the application at [name] Ground3 related to a single storage container only and the Council concluded that it did not occupy a visually prominent position. The appeal decision at [name] Plantation4 related to an application for prior approval under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). That proposal was therefore considered under different legislation with the Inspector determining that the proposals constituted permitted development. As such, I do not find either of the examples to be directly comparable to this appeal. In any event, I have considered this appeal on its individual merits.

For the above reasons, the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development is contrary to Policy DMG1 of the Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy 2008-2028. This requires that development is of a design which is sympathetic to existing land use in terms of nature, style and materials, amongst other things.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.