# 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 - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, s4-within-settlement, substantially-outweighed, self-build, small-scheme, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, great-weight-old-wording, design-refusal, drafting-slip ## 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 - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to setting of Grade II 395-397 Burnley Road and Grade II Ram Inn; "considerable importance and weight"; public benefits (one self-build home) limited weight, do not outweigh (DL 17-18) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification for the harm (DL 7, 19) - **DP3: fail.** not named; flat-roofed zinc/larch design "wholly inappropriate and incongruous", prominent in long views (DL 11-12, 15) - **S4: fail.** not named, but within settlement; benefits "substantially outweighed" by heritage and character harm (DL 20) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one self-build dwelling secured by legal agreement, limited weight (DL 18) - **Burnley LP SP5, NE3, HE1, HE2: conflict.** (DL 19) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006054 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1d5d52a4-dc8b-4d70-aec3-4251878125f1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006054.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.