Detached front garage at 2 Ling Road, Walton, Chesterfield

What was proposed

A single-storey detached garage was proposed on the front lawn, measuring 4.5 metres by 6.6 metres and up to 3.9 metres high.

“The application proposes the development of single storey, detached garage to be located to the north-east of the application site. It is proposed to be sited to the front of the dwelling, on an existing lawned area.”

“The applicant and agent have stated that they remain committed to working constructively to find a solution in respect of the proposed development. This current application seeks to address the concerns highlighted in respect of the development proposed as part of the previous planning application (CHE/25/00737/HOU) and includes a number of amendments.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a detached dwelling on a corner plot, with an existing garage at the rear and access from Ling Road.

“The property, 2 Ling Road (No 2), is a detached dwelling located on a corner plot on the south side of Ling Road. It is located at the junction of Ling Road and Davian Way and is finished in red brick with white upvc windows. No 2 currently has a garage located to the rear south west corner of the application site. This is accessed from Ling Road by a driveway located on the west side of the application site.”

Officer report

Earlier refused application

An earlier garage proposal was refused because its scale, layout, prominent position and replacement boundary fence harmed the area’s character and appearance.

“This application was refused for the following reason: The proposed development, as a result of its scale, layout, prominent position and replacement of a boundary hedge with a fence, would result in…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the garage would remain dominant and harm the visual character and appearance of the area.

“The development would still be located in a prominent position, to the front of No 2. While the hedge is to be retained, it would only partially screen the development. In addition, while the proposed development has been reduced in size since consideration of CHE/25/00737/HOU, it would still, due to its scale, layout and siting, result in a dominant form of development that would erode the spacious front garden associated with No 2 and be harmful and at odds with the…”

“The design of the garage and the proposed materials (brick and tile) are considered acceptable and in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.”

Officer report

Highways and public comments

Highways raised no objection, while one public comment concerned the garage’s location, building line, appearance and vehicle manoeuvring.

“Ward members No comments received Local Highway Authority Whilst garages are not accepted as being a parking space, it is considered that appropriate on-site parking will be maintained regardless of the proposed garage being constructed.”

“Neighbours / public No.1 comment received raising concerns for the proposed location of the garage and manoeuvrability…”

Officer report

Detailed public concerns

The public comment welcomed hedge retention but said the structure would remain out of line and that turning a car could be difficult.

“The application was advertised in accordance with statutory requirements and no.1 public comment has been received as a result. The comment is summarised as follows; • Welcome retention of existing mature hedge • Concerned that the proposed structure still offends the established building line • Examples of similar garages which all look out of place • Surprised to see LHA is satisfied with the turning arrangements for the proposed development...”

“The comments raised have been addressed in Section 6.2 of this report.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant addressed the meeting after the Principal Planner presented the proposal and explained its location.

The committee debate

A counter-proposal was made and seconded to approve the application instead of following the officer recommendation.

“Councillor Caulfield put a counter proposal forward, to go against the officer’s recommendation, and it was seconded by Councillor Brittain to vote on whether the application should be approved.”

Minutes

The vote

Seven members supported the counter-proposal, three opposed it and one abstained.

“A total of 7 votes went in favour of the counter proposal, and 3 votes went against the counter proposal. 1 councillor abstained from voting.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee did not uphold the officer recommendation and granted permission subject to conditions.

“That the officer’s recommendation not be upheld and the application be GRANTED subject to the following terms and conditions.”

Minutes

Permission conditions

Permission required a three-year start, compliance with approved plans, matching materials and retention of the frontage hedge at two metres.

“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).”

“In accordance with Proposed plan 2025-385-03 REV P02, the hedge to the frontage of the site shall be retained to a minimum height of 2m throughout the life of the development. Should the hedge fail in any area then it shall be replanted to maintain the hedge overall to the height specified.”

Minutes