Higher boundary wall at Newfield Garage, Manchester Road, Tunstead Milton

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought to increase an existing concrete boundary wall to a maximum height of 3.85 metres.

“Retrospective planning permission is sought for the increase in height of an existing concrete boundary wall which delineates the eastern perimeter of the JE Mortens site with the neighbouring dwelling of Higher Birches.”

“The boundary between Higher Birches and the application site had previously been afforded a concrete blockwork boundary wall between the two sites. The works which have been undertaken, subject of this application, are to increase the height of said boundary wall. This has been done by adding additional courses of concrete blockwork along the length of the existing boundary wall.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site forms part of an established AdBlue industrial operation in the countryside, within a Primary Employment Zone and neighbourhood plan area.

“The site to which the application relates forms part of the wider site of J E Moreton Ltd located to the south of Manchester Road and the settlement of Tunstead Milton . The site consists of a well established industrial operation involved in the production of AdBlue.”

“The application site lies within the Countryside, ‘settled valley pastures’ landscape character area, Flood-zone 2, as well as a Primary Employment Zone area and the CELF Neighbourhood Plan boundary, as defined in the Local Plan.”

Officer report

Relevant planning history

An earlier retrospective application for a higher concrete block wall and covered yard was approved in 2017, while several later applications remain pending or were withdrawn.

“Reference no. HPK/2017/0522 Description: To increase height of existing concrete block wall and to roof over part of existing yard, forming covered area (retrospective application) Decision: Approved (29/11/2017)”

“Reference no. HPK/2017/0439 Description: Retrospective application for 3 no. storage tanks Decision: Approved (15/06/2018)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was acceptable in principle and would not cause significant harm to residential amenity, design or landscape character.

“In conclusion the proposals are deemed to be acceptable in principle. There would be no significant adverse impacts upon residential amenity, the proposals would not have an unacceptable design or result in adverse harm to the landscape character in accordance with the relevant planning polices set out in the High Peak Local Plan (2016), THE Chapel-en-le-Frith Neighbourhood Plan, Supplementary Planning documents and the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council sought committee consideration and a site visit, highways raised no objection, and environmental health comments were awaited.

“The Parish Council request the application be submitted to the development control committee for consideration and a site visit be undertaken.”

“Derbyshire County Council highways (No objection)”

Officer report

Objections raised

A neighbouring occupier objected that the wall was unsafe, overbearing and harmful to garden amenity, and asked for demolition and rebuilding.

“One public comment has been received from the neighbouring occupier at higher Birches who objects on the grounds that:”

“- Current wall is unsuitable, unstable and dangerous, fork lift truck run along the boundary wall. We have not been able to use a large part of our garden. - Does not provide for a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of the site. - If approved there should be an exclusion zone around the wall where folk lift trucks cannot enter.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector’s statement was read to the committee, and the agent addressed members.

Members’ consideration

The committee undertook a site visit before considering the application.

“The Committee had undertaken a site visit.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to grant planning permission as set out in the report.

“That planning permission be granted as set out in the report; and…”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted with the report’s conditions and delegated authority for non-substantive changes to the decision wording.

“That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

The approved plans had to be followed, and structural site investigations and resulting strengthening works had to be submitted, approved and implemented within specified periods.

“A. That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined below: Development to be retained in accordance with approved plans 2. Within 3 months of the date of this permission details of Site investigation works in line the Structural Report carried out by D and D Consulting Engineers (Reference no. J0.14, Dated April 2025) shall be submitted to…”

Officer report