# Wrights Upholstery, Claremont Street, Burnley (student studios)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Fawcett
- **Authority:** Burnley (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007776
- **Application reference:** FUL/2025/0464
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of vacant commercial building to sui generis student accommodation of 24 studios, with a raised rear roof
- **Homes:** 24
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HO9, P3
- **Development plan policies:** Burnley Local Plan 2018 SP5, IC3
- **Main issues:** future occupier living conditions, neighbour noise, parking
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, student-accommodation, living-conditions, noise, l2-substantial-weight, plan-making-policies-not-for-decisions, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Conversion of a vacant upholstery works in a terraced street in Burnley to 24 student studios. Dismissed. The scheme had no communal lounge or study space, and the side yard was cramped, so it failed on student living conditions (HO9). Late-night comings and goings of 24 residents would harm neighbours (P3). L2 gave substantial weight to re-using the vacant building, but S4 was still "substantially outweighed". Parking was acceptable.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶4).
- **Future occupiers — HO9: FAIL.** "Given that the accommodation is intended for students, many of whom may be living away from home and in an unfamiliar environment, communal facilities can play an important role in fostering social interaction ... The lack of such facilities ... could contribute to feelings of isolation" (DL ¶7). The yard and nearby park would not be "a realistic substitute for dedicated internal communal facilities" (DL ¶8).
- **Neighbours — P3: HARM.** "the pattern of comings and goings and the potential for outdoor congregation would likely give rise to an unacceptable level of noise" and "could not be satisfactorily mitigated through the use of planning conditions" (DL ¶16).
- **Parking: PASS.** Students are "a group that typically exhibits lower levels of car ownership", and the site is accessible (DL ¶19).
- **Plan-making policies.** "Whilst the appellant has made reference to Policies HO1 and HO5, these are plan-making policies which the Framework indicates should not be used when making decisions on development proposals" (DL ¶26).

## Planning balance
S4. For: re-use of a vacant building (L2 substantial weight), a general addition to housing supply (no evidenced student need), and small economic benefits (DL ¶¶25-27). Against: HO9 and P3 conflicts. "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶28).

## What made the difference
The complete absence of internal communal space, together with the tight side yard next to bedroom windows and the neighbours. Meeting NDSS for each studio did not help, because the use is sui generis student accommodation. A shared lounge or study room, even at the cost of some studios, and evidence of local student need would have strengthened the case considerably.

## Transferable points
- HO9 is applied to the quality of student accommodation. Communal internal space matters for student wellbeing, and NDSS compliance of the individual units does not settle it (DL ¶¶6-10).
- Noise from comings and goings and outdoor congregation can be decisive under P3 even where Environmental Health does not object (DL ¶16).
- L2's substantial weight for re-using vacant buildings can be substantially outweighed under S4 (DL ¶¶25, 28).
- Plan-making policies (HO1, HO5) cannot be relied on in decision-taking (DL ¶26).
- HO7's substantial weight requires "evidenced accommodation needs". Without evidence of student need, supply gets general rather than substantial weight (DL ¶26).

## Policy findings
- **HO9: fail.** no internal communal space; narrow side yard with bins next to ground-floor windows; risk of isolation for students (DL 6-10, 28)
- **P3: harm.** comings and goings of 24 independent occupiers at unsociable hours, plus yard congregation, in a quiet terraced street; cannot be conditioned away; EHO no objection not decisive (DL 11-17, 28)
- **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** better use of a vacant building (DL 25)
- **HO7: benefit.** no evidence of student need, but adds generally to housing supply (DL 26)
- **TR2: pass.** 5 spaces including 1 accessible; students have low car ownership; accessible location (DL 18-22); mapped from LP IC3

## Key facts
- Scheme reduced from 48 to 24 studios during the application (DL 2)
- Each studio meets NDSS, but that does not answer the communal-space issue for sui generis student housing (DL 7)
- Inspector holds that HO1 and HO5 are plan-making policies "which the Framework indicates should not be used when making decisions" (DL 26)
- Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007776
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7c6c517d-26f1-43b8-a092-9542e604616a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007776.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.