# Land adjacent to Salisbury Cottages, Hadfield, Glossop

- **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton
- **Authority:** High Peak (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011421
- **Application reference:** HPK/2026/0021
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Detached dwelling on sloping land in the rear curtilage of 124-126 Station Road
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3
- **Development plan policies:** High Peak Local Plan 2016 S1, EQ5, EQ6
- **Main issues:** neighbour privacy, future occupier amenity, biodiversity net gain, character and appearance
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, l2-1-d-curtilage, l2-substantial-weight, living-conditions, backland, bng-exemption-not-shown, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, drafting-slip

## Summary
A detached house on a sloping piece of rear curtilage behind frontage houses in Hadfield, inside the settlement boundary. Dismissed. The raised siting would overlook neighbours despite 2 m fences, the new garden would itself be overlooked, and the claimed BNG exemption was not shown. Character was acceptable. The inspector gave L2(1)(d)/S4/L3 substantial weight but found the scheme failed L2(1)(d)(ii) and DP3.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework for the appeal; however, no comments were received" (DL ¶2).
- **Neighbour privacy — EQ6, L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3: FAIL.** "the site's higher position relative to neighbouring properties would increase the opportunities for overlooking beyond those typically associated with the separation distances involved" (DL ¶7). A 2 m fence's "effectiveness would be diminished by the difference in ground levels" (DL ¶8). Conflict with "Policy L2(1)(d)(ii) of the Framework, which requires development of this nature to maintain living standards for neighbours" (DL ¶10).
- **Future occupiers — EQ6, L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3: FAIL.** The garden "would be subject to a significant degree of actual and perceived overlooking … would fail to provide the quality of private amenity reasonably expected to serve a dwelling" (DL ¶11).
- **BNG — S1, EQ5: FAIL.** "a material proportion of the site comprises modified grassland" (DL ¶13). "No biodiversity metric, habitat assessment or other ecological evidence has been submitted … Nor has sufficient evidence been provided to substantiate the claimed exemption" (DL ¶14).
- **Character — EQ6, L2(1)(d)(i), DP3: PASS.** "experienced principally within the lane itself rather than the wider street scene … any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area would be limited" (DL ¶17); "no conflict with Policy L2(1)(d)(i) or Policy DP3" (DL ¶18).

## Planning balance
"the proposal attracts support in principle from Policies S4 and L3 of the Framework. These are benefits to which Policy L2(1)(d) requires substantial weight to be given" (DL ¶21). "Nevertheless, I attach greater weight to the identified conflict with the development plan … It would also conflict with the Framework when read as a whole, including Policies L2(1)(d)(ii) and DP3" (DL ¶25). "the support provided by Policies S4, L3 and L2(1)(d) does not indicate that planning permission should be granted" (DL ¶26).

## What made the difference
Topography. The plot sits above its neighbours, so standard separation distances and 2 m fences did not protect privacy in either direction. That is a direct L2(1)(d)(ii) failure, and it is also the qualifying condition for the L2(1)(d) weight in the first place. The unsupported BNG exemption claim (grassland, not hardstanding) was a separate, freestanding failure. A single-storey design with no rear first-floor windows, plus a BNG metric, might have succeeded, since character was accepted.

## Transferable points
- L2(1)(d)(ii) is applied both to neighbours and to the future occupiers' own external amenity and privacy (DL ¶¶10, 12).
- Level differences can defeat boundary fencing as privacy mitigation; separation distances are not determinative on sloping sites (DL ¶¶7–9).
- A backland dwelling not visible from the principal street frontage can satisfy L2(1)(d)(i) even though it departs from the frontage pattern (DL ¶¶17–18).
- A claimed BNG de minimis/hardstanding exemption needs evidence; modified grassland on site defeats it, and the lack of a metric is a standalone reason (DL ¶¶13–14).
- Drafting slip: the S4 "substantially outweighed" test is never expressly applied. The inspector "attach[es] greater weight" to the conflicts (DL ¶25), which is ordinary-balance language, and then concludes S4 support does not indicate permission (DL ¶26). An appellant could argue the wrong threshold was used.

## Policy findings
- **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** elevated siting overlooks neighbours' gardens and windows despite 2 m fences; the new garden is overlooked from higher and lower ground (DL 10, 12)
- **DP3: conflict.** cited alongside L2(1)(d)(ii) for both amenity issues; no conflict on character (DL 10, 12, 18)
- **L2(1)(d)(i): pass.** largely screened from principal street frontage; limited character harm (DL 17-18)
- **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** additional dwelling and effective use of residential plot; with S4 and L3 (DL 21, 25)
- **S4(1): fail.** S4 support "does not indicate that planning permission should be granted"; substantially-outweighed test not expressly stated (DL 25-26)
- **HPLP EQ6: conflict.** neighbour and future-occupier amenity (DL 10, 12)
- **HPLP S1, EQ5: conflict.** BNG exemption claimed (hardstanding) not shown; modified grassland, no metric or baseline (DL 13-14)

## Key facts
- Sloping rear-curtilage plot, accessed by a lane off Salisbury Street, inside Hadfield settlement boundary (DL 5, 15)
- Proposed 2 m fences ineffective because of level differences; first-floor rear windows give oblique views into gardens of 28-30 Salisbury Street (DL 8-9)
- Appellant claimed BNG exemption as hardstanding; the site was materially modified grassland and no metric was submitted (DL 13-14)
- No comments received from the parties on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)
- Earlier refusal HPK/2018/0353; a 2006 precedent at 19 Curtis Grove given limited weight (DL 19-20)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011421
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c860886d-1968-4f02-87e1-76f75e42a95f

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011421.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.