Appeal 6005885

The appeal is dismissed.

I have included the Easting and Northing co-ordinates in the banner heading to provide additional clarity in respect of the appeal site location.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area.

The appeal site is a long and thin area of open space that rises in gradient to the north and west. It is surrounded by a road with a hairpin turn at one end that results in the open space culminating to a rounded point. Two rows of houses, composed of brick and render, front onto and overlook the site. The surface of the open space includes grass, mud and stones with temporary construction fencing and shipping containers also visible. The absence of buildings on the appeal site gives it an open character, creating a sense of space within the residential estate, and which helps it transition to the fields and countryside nearby.

The proposed development would be situated at the rounded end of the open space and involves the erection of a rectangular pitched roof building composed of timber elevations and a grey metal roof. The building would store tools, equipment and materials intended for maintenance of the open space. Other works include a gravel hardstanding and soft landscaping works.

The Council, through their [name] (2022), identify the appeal site as amenity greenspace. Policy 23 of the Oldham Local Development Framework (2011) (OLDF) generally seeks to protect and promote existing areas of open space. The limited circumstances whereby development is supported are set out therein. These include that the loss of an open space will be permitted where proposals comprise of a small scale development which is ancillary or complementary to the open space function of the site, and the quality and character of the site is maintained.

The appeal proposal would be limited to a single-storey in height and occupy a modest footprint, taking up only a small proportion of the open space. However, the absence of other permanent structures, combined with the generally open character of the area, would cause the building to appear isolated and at odds with the established linear pattern of nearby dwellings. Likewise, the proposed timber cladding and grey metal roof would assume a utilitarian appearance that would be visually incongruous with the mostly brick and render finish of the adjacent residential properties. Soft landscaping is proposed to provide a visual buffer, yet this would further diminish the sense of open space and would not prevent the building from appearing isolated.

The appeal site enables uninterrupted views of the dwellings on either side. The introduction of a vertical structure would break up these sightlines, interrupting the visibility of the dwellings within the streetscene, and eroding the open character of the site and its wider setting. With the building proposed to be situated at the northernmost end of the open space, it would occupy an elevated position, increasing its visual prominence and further amplifying the harm it would cause to the spacious character of the area.

It is recognised that the building would be small in scale and is intended to serve an ancillary role in supporting the maintenance, management and upkeep of the open space. However, as set out above, the proposal would not maintain the character of the appeal site or the surrounding area and thereby would be contrary to Policy 23 of the OLDF. Consequently, the proposed benefits in respect of land management do not sufficiently outweigh the material harm that would be caused in terms of character and appearance.

The proposal would deliver some ecological enhancement through the planting of native trees and hedgerows. However, the scale of this gain would be modest and therefore attracts limited weight. The appeal scheme would be unlikely to give rise to adverse effects in relation to surface or foul water drainage, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, or the safety of highway users. Even so, the absence of harm in these respects does not amount to a positive benefit, nor is it determinative in the appeal.

The appellant has referred to the presence of ancillary structures in the surrounding context. A small number of sheds and bin stores are located within the gardens belonging to dwellings on [address]. Unlike the proposed development, these are small domestic structures positioned near their respective host property so that they do not appear isolated. Hence, they are not directly comparable.

It is unclear how the shipping containers came to be located on the open space. Nevertheless, their presence does not positively contribute to the character of the area. They appear similarly utilitarian and isolated as the appeal proposal and therefore offer little justification for it. For these reasons, I attach limited weight to these structures, as well as those within the gardens of nearby dwellings, and they do not persuade me that the appeal proposal would be acceptable.

In light of the above, the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) and Policies 9 and 23 of the OLDF which seek visually stimulating development where the quality and character of the site is maintained, which does not have a significant, adverse impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.