Garage and parking use at 26 Swift Close, Bradwell

What was proposed

The application sought permission for part of the garage to be used for domestic purposes while retaining vehicle parking, without physical alterations.

“This application seeks planning permission to use the integrated garage at 26 Swift Close for a mix of incidental use associated with the dwelling as well as the parking of vehicles.”

“The use of part of the garage for incidental domestic purposes as well as the parking of vehicles.”

Officer report

The property and parking

The site is a three-bedroom terraced house with one garage space and two driveway spaces within a larger residential development.

“The property is part of a large residential development which is formed of a mix of 2-, 3- and 4-bedroom dwellings. No. 26 Swift Close is a 3-bedroom house.”

“The application site currently has 3 parking spaces available; 1 space in the garage and 2 on the driveway.”

Officer report

Earlier advice and conditions

Earlier advice and a previous permission restricted the garage and parking spaces to vehicle parking unless further permission was granted.

“PE\2025\ENQ\53175: Enquiry for the potential change of use of existing garage; half the space for a garage and the remaining space for normal domestic additional purposes. Advised of planning condition restricting use of the garage for parking.”

“The garage / car parking spaces shall be kept available for the parking of motor vehicles at all times. The garage / car spaces shall be used solely for the benefit of the occupants of the dwelling of which it forms part and their visitors and for no other purpose.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers accepted that one parking space would be lost but considered the remaining provision adequate and the lack of harm more important than policy conflict.

“The applicant has submitted additional information, and has demonstrated to Officers satisfaction that the loss of 1 vehicular parking space serving 26 Swift Close would not have an unacceptable impact on parking provision, highway safety or residential amenity.”

“Officers consider that the lack of identified harm from the proposed development is a material planning consideration which should be afforded significant weight. It is the view of Officers that this material planning consideration outweighs the conflict with the development plan.”

Officer report

Parking and safety assessment

Officers concluded that two remaining spaces met the minimum standard and that occasional roadside parking would not significantly harm safety, appearance or residential amenity.

“As 26 Swift Close would retain the minimum necessary provision, it is not anticipated that there would be frequent demand for a third car parking space serving the property. In the situations where an additional vehicular parking space is required, it is anticipated that this could be met through on-street parking.”

“Therefore, Officers have concluded that the loss of 1 parking space serving the property would not have a harmful impact on highway safety, the character and appearance of the site or residential amenity. Policy DMT8.B therefore outlines that such a parking space would not need to be protected and the use of the garage as proposed would not be in conflict with the policy.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The highways authority sought more information without giving a further response, while the parish council objected to losing a parking space.

“Derbyshire County Council (Highways): Recommend deferral pending additional information.”

“Bradwell Parish Council: Object, on the grounds that the development would result in the loss of 1 parking space, and would therefore violate Bradwell Neighbourhood Policy T2, which states that; "The removal of any current car parking facilities, both public and private, will be strongly opposed".”

Officer report

Who spoke

One person spoke under the public participation scheme.

What members discussed

Members discussed the parking standards, the neighbourhood policy, the partitioned garage, possible driveway overhangs and effects on pedestrians and traffic circulation.

“The following points were discussed: • The garages at Bradwell Springs could be used for alternative purposes with consent from the Peak District National Park Authority. • There was no distinction between a house being used as a dwelling or as a holiday let. If the deeds included restrictions on the use of properties as holiday lets, that was not a planning matter, as the property would remain in use as a dwelling albeit on a short-term occupancy basis.”

“The recommendation for approval was based on the location being a redeveloped site with modern parking standards. The Neighbourhood Plan policies had been a material consideration. • The final decision taken should consider the impact of this proposal on this area of Bradwell. Any subsequent appeal on a refusal would be hard to defend by Officers unless harm could be evidenced.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to refuse the application against the officer recommendation was moved, seconded, voted on and carried.

“A motion to refuse the application contrary to Officer recommendation, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried. RESOLVED:”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the proposal was said to reduce parking below the minimum and impede pedestrian and vehicular access on Swift Close.

“That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

“The proposed development would reduce the number of car parking spaces serving the property to below the specified minimum outlined in Appendix 9 of the Development Management Policies Plan and would impede pedestrian and vehicular access on Swift Close to the detriment of local traffic circulation. The proposal development is therefore in conflict with Neighbourhood Plan policy T2 and Development Management Policy DMT8.”

Minutes