Greenfield homes development rejected again after planning appeal

PLANS to build four homes on an area of Greenfield land have suffered a second defeat.

Oldham Council originally said no to Chasten Holdings’ proposal for the development at Steadway in September.

Now after the firm attempted to get that overturned, the Planning Inspectorate has backed that call.

Chasten questioned the role of Oldham Council’s highways department as it fought for the three four-bedroomed and one five-bedroomed properties.

It even produced parts of the Oldham Borough Local Plan, produced in 1984, to back up its argument.

It said: “It is unclear from the consultee comments dated October 5, 2022 whether the highways authority object or not.

“The highways authority suggests a reason for refusal if the local planning authority consider that such a refusal can be sustained at appeal.

“However, the suggested reason for refusal is different and raises separate issues to that listed in the council’s decision notice.

“The local planning authority has not provided any clarity on the position and instead suggests it was unreasonable that the applicant had not responded to comments that post-date the refusal of planning permission.

“The site falls within a village. The appeal site comprises a gap in the built-up envelope of the village of Greenfield. The proposed development would be limited given the overall size of the settlement and the pattern of built development in the locality.

“It does not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt.”

Oldham Council rejected the application as the development would impact on the openness of the Green Belt and represents inappropriate development within it.

It also stated it failed to provide a safe pedestrian route from Steadway to Plots three and four, causing highway safety issues and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the development can take place without harm to the protected trees.

And after a site visit by inspector Hannah Ellison, the appeal was dismissed.

In her decision, she states: “The site is clearly distinct when viewed from public vantage points and, as such, could not reasonably be described as a gap between built development. Therefore, the proposal cannot be classed as infill development.

“Even if the development of four dwellings may be appropriate to the scale of the locality, as I have found the proposal would not represent infilling, it would fail to meet the exception. It would therefore be inappropriate development, which should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

“Spatially, the proposal would introduce four dwellinghouses as well as a garage, areas of hardstanding including driveways and the access road, and domestic gardens to a site which is currently free from built form.

“This would result in a significant loss of openness in spatial terms.

“I have also found that the proposed development would result in loss of openness and would conflict with one of the purposes of the Green Belt.

“I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would cause significant harm to its openness and would undermine one of its five purposes.

“Additionally, I have identified that the proposed development would harm protected trees. This weighs heavily against the proposal. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist.

“The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

“Therefore, the appeal should not succeed.”