Appeal 6004312

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the appeal the appellant proposed hours of use to address the second reason for refusal. The Council subsequently stated that the proposed hours of use are considered to be acceptable subject to a condition. [name] have no reason to disagree, I do not need to deal with this matter as a main issue.

At the time of my site visit the development had been carried out and appeared to accord with the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the:  character and appearance of the area; and  function of the Local Green Space and [name] (CWC).

There is no dispute between the main parties that the site lies adjacent to, but outside of any Defined Development Boundary and outside of the built-up part of Chickerell. As such, the site falls within the countryside.

Although the site adjoins residential development to its northern boundary, beyond the access road to the east, and to its southern and western boundaries are undeveloped open land comprising the CWC and the Woodland Trust Land by [address] Local Important Green Space (LGS).

The site falls within the [name] and Vale landscape character area. This landscape is defined by small limestone ridges and clay vales running east– west, framed by the [name] chalk escarpment to the north. The West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment 2009 states that towards Weymouth the landscape opens out into a broader landscape where urban fringe land uses have an urbanising influence in this locality.

The site has an industrial character, with the shipping containers appearing bulky, stark and intrusive within the immediate area. This is the case despite the containers not occupying all of the appeal site. Although partly screened from [address], parts of the containers are visible above the boundary hedge. Furthermore, the containers and associated paraphernalia are clearly visible through the access off [address], from the adjacent footpath and from parts of Green Lane.

As a result, the site relates poorly in design terms to the housing development immediately to the north with the storage containers appearing as incongruous urban features that detract from the quality of the local area, particularly when viewed in association with the CWC and LGS. In light of this, the development has an urbanising influence at this urban fringe location detracting from the adjacent residential development, open space/countryside and wider landscape. Given the additional container numbers forming part of the development, this is the case even acknowledging that the Lawful Development Certificate1 for the corrugated iron barn and timber shed.

I have had regard to the appellant stating that the containers could be coloured dark green but given that a number of the containers are already shades of dark green and detract from the character and appearance of the area, and due to their stark urban form and nature, this would not overcome the concerns raised above.

I have also had regard to the land immediately to the east of the site being provisionally identified in the emerging Dorset Local Plan for potential for housing. However, I give this very limited weight in light of the sites being prospective sites with no formal allocation. Moreover, the appeal site is also viewed in association with the land to its southern and western boundaries that is characterised by open undeveloped land.

It follows from the above that the development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it is contrary to Policies ENV1, ENV10 and ENV12 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 (LP) and Policy CNP11 of the Chickerell Town Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2026 (NP). Amongst other things, these state that development should be located and designed so that it does not detract from and, where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character, permits development where the siting and design respects the character of the surrounding area, and state that all development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness and be informed by the character of the site and its surroundings. For the same reasons the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that seeks to achieve well-designed places. 1 P/CLE/2024/07601

The appeal site immediately adjoins the LGS designated under NP Policy CNP2. The LGS is designated for both its wildlife and recreational value and function.

However, the designation does not cover the appeal site that is of a different character comprising more open land with significantly less planting and no public access. Furthermore, the [name] (PEA) accompanying the appeal found no evidence of protected habitats, no evidence of protected species, no ponds with the structures not containing any potential roost sites for bats or active bird nests. In light of this, the development does not harm the wildlife or recreational value or function of the LGS.

With regard to the CWC, NP Policy CNP4 states that this undeveloped corridor forms an important network of multifunctional green space capable of delivering a wide range of environmental benefits. It further states that development that would significantly detract from this function will be resisted.

I accept that the appeal site forms part of the wider network of important green space and I have identified above the visual harm to the area. Nonetheless, in light of the findings in the PEA, given the small size of the appeal site, and in the absence of any substantive evidence demonstrating that environmental benefits would be harmed, I do not find that the development significantly detracts from the function of the wider CWC.

It follows from the above that I find no harm to the function of the Local Green Space and [name]. As such, the development complies with [name] CNP2 and CNP4. Amongst other things, these state that other than in very special circumstances, no inappropriate development will be permitted that would harm designated Local Green Spaces and that development that would significantly detract from the function of the [name] will be resisted.

I acknowledge that the development complies with LP Policy ECON1 with regard to employment development being supported within or on the edge of a settlement. Nonetheless, I note that LP paragraph 4.1.5 recognises that economic development can have a significant impact on the character of an area and significantly adversely affect the area’s landscape. Given this, and as I have found conflict with other LP and [name], compliance with Policy ECON1 does not outweigh the harm identified above to the character and appearance of the area.

I have had regard to the appellant requesting grant of a temporary consent for 3 or 5 years. However, I have identified above that the development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would not significantly change during a temporary period. Moreover, a temporary period is not necessary to assess the effect of the development. As such, I do not find the grant of a temporary permission acceptable.

I have also had regard to the appellant advising that the containers are fully used indicating a need for the development. Notwithstanding, I have no other substantive evidence before me demonstrating a shortage of storage facilities in the area. Furthermore, I have no substantive evidence demonstrating that such facilities could not be provided at [name] and Link Park, or other land allocated under LP Policy CHIC2 for employment development. As such, I do not find that the need for the development outweighs the harm identified above to the character and appearance of the area.

[name] have found no harm with regard to the effect of the development on the function of the Local Green Space and [name], I have found that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. In my view, this is the prevailing consideration, and the development should be regarded as being in conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole.

Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.