®Planning appeal decision
Land South of Hollin Cross Lane, Glossop, SK13 8JH
Planning appeal 3303566 at Land South of Hollin Cross Lane, Glossop, SK13 8JH (High Peak Borough Council) was dismissed on 28 November 2022 by Inspector Russell M, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the St James Conservation Area (CA) and the non-designated heritage asset 'Redcourt' (NDHA) including its setting.
Demolition of redundant buildings including partial demolition of modern extensions to Redcourt and redevelopment of site to provide 30 dwellings (Use Class C3) including the retention and conversion of Redcourt together with access, parking and landscaping
- Authority
- High Peak Borough Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Russell M
- Postcode
- SK13 8JH
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the St James Conservation Area (CA) and the non-designated heritage asset 'Redcourt' (NDHA) including its setting
- whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the development with particular regard to the effect of existing trees on the usability of proposed gardens including in terms of light penetration
- whether the proposal would provide an appropriate housing mix including adequate provision for affordable housing
What decided it
The proposal's failure to provide an appropriate housing mix, through the absence of one-bedroomed units and unresolved accessibility standard compliance, resulted in conflict with the development plan as a whole that was not outweighed by other considerations.
The less than substantial harm to the conservation area and non-designated heritage asset was outweighed by the public benefits including optimum viable use and housing delivery, but this did not overcome the conflict arising from an inappropriate housing mix, and the appeal was dismissed.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy S1Policy S5Policy H1Policy EQ6Policy EQ9Policy EQ7Policy H3Policy H4Policy SS1
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 12Paragraph 56Paragraph 62Paragraph 196Paragraph 199Paragraph 202
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in High Peak
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Allowed5 October 20266013259Shady Oak Inn, Long Hill, Fernilee, SK23 7HD
- Allowed30 September 20266009410Land Rear Of 53 Beresford Avenue., Chapel-en-le-Frith, SK23 0PZ
- Dismissed21 September 20266011421Land Adjacent To Salisbury Cottages, Unnamed Road From Salisbury Street To Salisbury Cottages, Hadfield, Glossop, SK13 1NN
- Allowed21 September 2026601031115 Compton Road, Buxton, SK17 9DN
- Dismissed4 September 20266011027The Rising Rest Home, Primrose Lane, Simmondley, Glossop, SK13 6LW
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.