Appeal 6002592

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for a full award of costs was made by [name] of CDC against Chesterfield Borough Council. This is the subject of a separate Decision.

CHE/25/00609/FUL permitted a container in the [site address] car park subject to two conditions. Condition 1 requires its removal before 31st October 2026. Condition 2 specifies the approved plans. The container is in place. The appeal proposal seeks to remove the conditions, with the effect of allowing its permanent retention with no approved parameters of siting, scale, and elevational treatment.

Section 79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows that, on appeal under section 78, the Secretary of State may reverse or vary any part of the decision of the Local Planning Authority whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not, and deal with the application as if it had been made to them in the first instance.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, with particular regard to outlook.

The proposal relates to the light grey shipping container positioned at the corner of the [site address] car park, adjacent to the entrance. This is the most prominent part of the car park, being the highest point and furthest from the main building. Its industrial form and materials appear incongruous within the wider residential setting, which results in the container having an undue degree of prominence and visibility. In medium‐range views from [address], as well as in close views along [site address] , its height and massing dominates or competes with the adjacent row of bungalows and the main CDC building.

[name] were to allow this appeal, the appellant references the intention to better visually blend the container into the environment through artwork, and by incorporating a green roof with grass and wildflowers. This would provide greater visual interest and soften the container’s industrial appearance to some extent. However, the container would still draw undue attention and remain discordant within its setting, such that I am unconvinced that these additions would sufficiently mitigate its adverse visual impact. Indeed, they could even heighten its incongruous nature.

The proposed retention of the container for more than one year, and removal of control over its siting and physical appearance, would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy CLP20 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan (LP), whereby all development should respond positively to the character of the site and surroundings, and respect the local distinctiveness of its context including by virtue of its appearance, architectural style, massing, and materials.

The container is sited on a ground level significantly higher than that of the adjacent bungalow plots. As their rear habitable room windows are all at ground level, and because those gardens are very short, the container is imposing and overbearing at close range. [name] have not visited inside the nearest dwellings, I expect that this impact is experienced both internally and from their gardens.

The appellant’s consultation with local residents is acknowledged, as is that objections received may result from an ongoing dispute rather than from the proposal’s planning merits. Nonetheless, support from other parties does not equate to a lack of harm. There are also multiple reasons why nearby residents may not make a formal objection to a planning application, and moreover future residents may feel differently. I note that the email from the Council’s Team Leader of [name] does state that a container must not block the view from any other properties.

Overall therefore, the permanent retention of the container would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. It would conflict with the LP Policy CLP14, which requires development to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of users and neighbours.

I appreciate that CDC is a charity, and I recognise the importance of the container in order to provide valuable charitable services, and to minimise costs. Indeed, this was in effect the reason the Council granted temporary planning permission, in acknowledgement that some harm would result, but also that it would meet the charity’s immediate needs while enabling an alternative solution to be found.

[name] have some sympathy for the appellant, particularly given the conflicting information and advice they appear to have received from different Council departments, I must assess the proposal as it stands before me and in accordance with the development plan. I acknowledge the appellant’s other investment in upgrading the main building and the site generally, but this does not mitigate the specific harm which I have identified.

The container is identified as being essential for storing equipment for operational delivery, given the very limited storage space within the main building. The appellant highlights that the chosen location is the safest and flattest part of the car park, and that alternative positions were discounted due to presenting greater safety risks or access difficulties. They also note that removing the container after one year would have financial implications for the charity.

However, I have seen no detailed evidence of why other options were discounted, such as a lower height container, a more traditional style building, or the creation of a level surface adjacent to the main building. I therefore attach moderate weight to the general need for, and benefits of, a low cost additional storage solution, but only minimal weight in support of the specific siting proposed.

Overall, allowing permanent siting of the storage container would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and to the living conditions of neighbours, such that it would conflict with the development plan as a whole. The other material considerations as identified would not outweigh this conflict. For the reasons given above I therefore conclude that the appeal is dismissed.