Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for inappropriate Green Belt development in Oldham Metropolitan?
See which Green Belt impacts and site facts to compare with your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 8 of 78
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 8
- of 8 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Oldham LPA (53.555207, −2.077035). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Oldham Green Belt: fencing and front extensions
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and some dismissed extracts show little or no Green Belt harm.
Counted against appeals
Oldham fencing: openness and trees
Moderate harm to openness
The timber fence was found inappropriate development and to cause moderate harm to Green Belt openness.
No proof trees were unharmed
The conclusion says it had not been demonstrated that the completed works caused no harm to trees.
Other considerations fell short
The stated other considerations did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt and other harm, so very special circumstances were not found.
Helped or needed
Oldham extension: setting and space
A modest built form
Its footprint and volume were modest, and the Inspector found its impact on Green Belt openness negligible.
A built-up setting
It lay between terraced houses and a large public house rather than in open countryside.
Front space remained
The extension sat on the former garage driveway, while considerable front space would remain.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a specific loss of Green Belt openness?
- Can your drawings show footprint, volume and remaining open space?
- Have you addressed any visual or tree harm separately?
The Green Belt concern shown is a fence case; other dismissal extracts concern heritage or little Green Belt harm. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
10 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of porch and replacement with single storey extension to the front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 1 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, the extension itself would be modest in terms of both its footprint and volume. In addition to that, the building lies between two other buildings, a row of terraced houses and a large public house, rather than in the open countryside. The extension would be located to the front of the building on the former garage’s driveway, now a private garden area, but nevertheless a considerable amount of space would be retained at the front. Accordingly, any impact on the openness of the Green Belt would be negligible.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
22 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a car port.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues of the appeal are: • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect on openness and the purposes of including land within it, and; • Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character, appearance and significance of the Diglea Conservation Area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in Green Belt and no other harm has been identified in Green Belt terms. However, the great weight given to the less than substantial harm arising from the proposal upon the character, appearance and significance of the Diglea Conservation Area is an overriding factor which is not outweighed by the other material considerations and therefore, reflects conflict with the development plan and the Framework when taken as a whole.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
3 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
[address]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt, including the effect on openness, and • whether very special circumstances exist that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, when compared with the existing situation, the effect of the proposal on visual openness would be small. The proposed development would increase the footprint of the building, but only by a small amount. In the context of the wider Green Belt, the impact of the proposal on spatial openness would be negligible. Given the minor scale of the development, there would be no harm to any of the five Green Belt purposes.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3
17 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of timber fence to residential boundary and proposed railings to entrance.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) The effect of the timber fence on the openness of the Green Belt (ii) The effect of the timber fence on the character and appearance of the area (iii) The effect of the timber fence on trees (iv) Whether harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and has resulted in moderate harm to its openness. It has also resulted in significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and it has not been demonstrated that there has been no harm to trees as a result of the works that have been undertaken. Having regard to the reasons I have set out, I find that the other considerations in this case, taken both individually and cumulatively, do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 24 · Source pages 4, 5
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
9 August 2021 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
a rear dormer and side conservatory extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the Framework; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
However, the two elements of the appeal scheme are severable and in relation to the rear dormer I attach considerable weight to the fallback position. Comparing this element of the appeal scheme with the fallback, there is negligible additional harm caused to the Green Belt by the appeal scheme. Therefore, the other considerations in relation to the dormer clearly outweigh the harm it would cause to the Green Belt. Consequently, for the rear dormer the very special circumstances necessary to justify it exist and this element of the scheme would not conflict with Policy 22 of the DPD or the Framework outlined above.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3