Chesterfield planning chiefs clash over ‘eyesore’ garden centre

Councillors and planners clashed over whether changes to a garden centre without planning permission made it an ‘eyesore’ – as one member accused retrospective applicants of ‘sticking two fingers up’ at the council.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

A heated discussion took place between officers and members of Chesterfield Borough Council’s Planning Committee over the former Old Hardy’s builders yard, in Newbold Road, which was taken over by The Garden Building Co Ltd after being vacant for many years.

The garden centre had applied for retrospective consent to reclad the building, as well as put up a fence and sell retail garden items such as plants and sheds in front of the building on top of a former parking area.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Senior planner Helen Frith said: “The site is a bit of an anomaly on the street scene, which is mainly residential properties, and concerns have been raised regarding the appearance of the fenced-in sales area to the frontage in particular.”

A heated discussion took place between officers and members of Chesterfield Borough Council’s Planning Committee over the former Old Hardy’s builders yard, in Newbold Road, Chesterfield, which was taken over by The Garden Building Co Ltd after being vacant for many years.A heated discussion took place between officers and members of Chesterfield Borough Council’s Planning Committee over the former Old Hardy’s builders yard, in Newbold Road, Chesterfield, which was taken over by The Garden Building Co Ltd after being vacant for many years.
A heated discussion took place between officers and members of Chesterfield Borough Council’s Planning Committee over the former Old Hardy’s builders yard, in Newbold Road, Chesterfield, which was taken over by The Garden Building Co Ltd after being vacant for many years.

She commented that there was a line of mesh fencing on the site front, which was not considered to cause ‘such a level of harm that it could sustain a refusal of the application’.

However Councillor Mick Brady described the building as an ‘eyesore’.

He argued: “You seem to be looking at that building in isolation, you don’t seem to be standing back and looking at the whole local area whether that then looks completely out of place and doesn’t fit in with the area and the surroundings.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ms Frith said the site had a long-term commercial use and while she could see that it looked different from the residential properties, she didn’t think it was ‘harmful’, furthermore she thought the changes made to the building enhanced it, reminding members that a vacant building had been brought back into use.

The garden centre had applied for retrospective consent to reclad the building, as well as put up a fence and sell retail garden items such as plants and sheds in front of the building on top of a former parking area.The garden centre had applied for retrospective consent to reclad the building, as well as put up a fence and sell retail garden items such as plants and sheds in front of the building on top of a former parking area.
The garden centre had applied for retrospective consent to reclad the building, as well as put up a fence and sell retail garden items such as plants and sheds in front of the building on top of a former parking area.

Vice chairman Gordan Simmons commented: “Every now and again we get a retrospective planning application – I see that as arrogant and sticking two fingers up at this planning authority.”

However Group Leader in Development Management Paul Staniforth explained that submitting a retrospective planning application was not against council policy and all applications had to be assessed on their own merits.

Members refused the application on the grounds that the retail sales to the front and fencing were harmful to the street scene, as well as the loss of parking.