Car shelter at 44 Staunton Close, Chesterfield

What was proposed

Permission was sought for a carport beside the driveway and front garden, measuring about 6.5 metres long, 3.6 metres wide and up to 2.4 metres high.

“The application seeks permission for the erection of a carport to the south side of the driveway/front garden area. This would be approximately 6.5m long, 3.6m wide and 2.2m high at the front and 2.4m high at the rear. It would have 6 aluminium posts and polycarbonate roof panels. Image of carport…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a detached two-storey house in a residential cul-de-sac, with a driveway, parking and garage, accessed across a shared private driveway.

“The site relates to a two storey detached dwelling that is sited in the north-west corner of a cul-de-sac. The street is dominated by detached two storey dwellings. It is in a residential area and has housing to all sides.”

“The existing dwelling has a driveway and manoeuvring for 2 to 3 vehicles to the front of the site, plus a garage. To access the driveway the residents have to cross over a private driveway owned by no’s 42, 46 and 48 Staunton Close.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier application for mixed residential and commercial use and a hairdressing and beauty-treatment outbuilding was refused in October 2024.

“CHE/24/00443/RET - Change of use of residential property to a mixed residential and commercial use, and the construction of an outbuilding for hairdressing and beauty treatments – Refused – 15/10/24”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers considered the carport acceptable in design, residential amenity, highway safety, parking, biodiversity and climate-change terms, subject to landscaping mitigation.

“Local Plan policy CLP20 and CLP22 require consideration of parking provision and highway safety. Policy TR3 of the NPPF requires; Any significant adverse impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, should be mitigated to an acceptable degree using a vision-led approach.”

“In this case, the removal of landscaping to pre-empt the building of the carport is considered to impact biodiversity on site which is required to be mitigated. The appropriate mitigation can be secured through a landscaping condition being imposed on any permission. In line with policy N2 1f, it is noted that the proposed structure cannot include the provision of bird/bat boxes.”

Officer report

Main points raised

Officers said the application was valid, drainage could use guttering and permeable ground, and several ownership, covenant and property matters were outside planning control.

“As part of the application process 10 letters of representation have been received. Six of these letters were objections and four were in support of the scheme. A brief summary of the main concerns raised are set out below. Full letters are available to read on the website. Objections: (Planning matter) 1. Procedural – application invalid, drawings inaccurate. 2. Questions regarding land ownership and rights 3. Certificate B process incorrectly completed 4.”

“Officer comments – 1, 2 and 3 – The application has been validated and the information submitted is sufficient to deal with proposal. Certificate B has been submitted, with 8 weeks from validation to allow the 21 days to pass. 4, 5, 6 and 7 – considered within the report 8 – the proposal includes guttering and drainage – with permeable areas available in the front garden for a soakaway.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Statements were read for the applicant, an objector and a late objector, while Councillor Blakemore addressed the committee and read another statement.

Committee discussion

Members noted that the complaint and planning application were separate, landscaping removal did not need permission, and covenants were not for consideration.

“The Legal Advisor explained that the planning application and the complaint are separate matters and that there is a statutory duty to consider planning applications within certain timescales.”

“The Committee considered the report and noted the planning application and complaint were separate matters. It noted the concerns raised around the removal of the landscaping and that this would not have required planning permission and that restricted covenants were not a matter for consideration by the Planning Committee.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee upheld the officer recommendation and granted permission, subject to the report’s conditions and additional water-runoff arrangements being suggested.

“It was moved by Councillor Stone and seconded by Councillor Thompson.”

“That the officer recommendation be upheld, and the application be GRANTED, subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report and the suggestion of a water run-off from the carport should be collected via a guttering system and discharged into a water butt or soakaway.”

Minutes

Permission conditions

The permission required commencement within three years, compliance with approved plans and a biodiversity-focused soft-landscaping scheme.

“The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in full accordance with the approved plans (listed below) with the exception of any approved non-material amendment. All external dimensions and elevational treatments shall be as shown on the approved plan/s (listed below). • Site location plan drawing no. PL-001 Rev B • Proposed Site Plan • Car port image and specification document…”

“A scheme of soft landscaping designed to promote biodiversity at the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 56 days of the commencement of development, the details of which shall include details of all plant species, planting sizes, planting densities, the number of each species to be planted.”

Officer report