393 Burnley Road, Holme Chapel, Cliviger

Decision

dismissed, 8 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: A M Nilsson (on recommendation of J Reed, Appeal Planning Officer)

Authority

Burnley (North West)

Appeal reference

6006054

Application reference

FUL/2026/0003

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of a dog-grooming building and replacement with a detached two-storey self-build dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4, HE6, HE4(2)

Development plan policies

Burnley Local Plan 2018 SP5, NE3, HE1, HE2

Main issues

character and appearance; setting of listed buildings

Summary

A contemporary two-storey self-build house replacing a low dog-grooming building in a garden next to a group of Grade II listed buildings in Holme Chapel. Dismissed. Moderate harm to the listed buildings' setting (from height, massing and flat-roofed modern design) was not outweighed by the limited benefit of one self-build home, and the S4 within-settlement presumption was displaced.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The 2026 Framework "includes changes with respect to heritage matters with specific regard to the degrees of harm. That said, the actions of finding harm to a designated heritage asset is not materially different" — no consultation (DL ¶3).
• Setting — HE6 / HE4: HARM (moderate). Significance includes "the relationship of the buildings to each other and the land around them, including the rural and agricultural landscape" (DL ¶7). "the erection of a modern two storey detached dwelling would be harmful to the environment in which the listed buildings are experienced" (DL ¶8). Garden furniture at the pub is "lightweight removable" whereas the dwelling "would be a permanent addition to the setting" (DL ¶10). "I find the harm to be moderate in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶17).
• Existing building baseline. The grooming building is not a positive contributor but "is limited in its visibility due to its modest height. The same could not be said for the appeal proposal … it would be a dominant and visually intrusive building" (DL ¶15).
• Character. Variety of house types does not justify a flat roof and contemporary materials where "key design features are shared such as either hipped or pitched roof forms" (DL ¶12); unevidenced other approvals given no weight (DL ¶13).
• Public benefits. One self-build dwelling: "because the proposal would provide only one residential unit, I give them only limited weight. As such, given the great weight I must give to the conservation of designated heritage assets, the harm I have identified would not be outweighed" (DL ¶18). Note "great weight" (2024 wording) vs "substantial weight" correctly stated at DL ¶4.

Planning balance

HE6(4) heritage balance (harm not outweighed, DL ¶18–19), then the S4 test, unnamed: "Although the proposed development would be within a settlement, the benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the significance of nearby listed buildings" (DL ¶20). Then s38(6) plan-led conclusion (DL ¶21).

What made the difference

A permanent, taller, flat-roofed modern building replacing a low, barely visible structure, sitting in the view from a bridleway towards a coherent group of listed vernacular buildings. With only one dwelling, the benefits could not carry any heritage harm. A single-storey or pitched-roof stone design keeping the existing low profile would likely have fared better.

Transferable points

• For a single dwelling, public benefits (including self-build) attract only "limited weight" and will not outweigh moderate harm to listed buildings' setting (DL ¶18).
• Replacing a low, non-contributing building is not a free pass: the test is the new building's greater visibility and dominance (DL ¶15).
• Setting includes the rural/agricultural land a listed group backs onto (DL ¶7).
• Heritage harm that fails HE6 also displaces the S4 within-settlement presumption ("substantially outweighed") (DL ¶20).
• Inspectors treat the 2026 changes to heritage "degrees of harm" as not materially changing the exercise of finding harm (DL ¶3).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Existing single-storey dog-grooming building replaced by larger, higher, flat-roofed two-storey house in zinc, larch, stone and grey render
• Site on lower ground beside a bridleway; intervisibility with the listed pair and glimpses of the Ram Inn
• Listed group backs onto open countryside; rural/agricultural setting part of significance
• Self-build secured by legal agreement
• Site visit by an Appeal Planning Officer; decision by Inspector
• No consultation on the 2026 Framework — heritage changes "not materially different"

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.