Land adjacent to 10 Hurtley Street, Burnley (PIP, 6 flats)

Decision

allowed, 8 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: E Fawcett

Authority

Burnley (North West)

Appeal reference

6010021

Application reference

PIP/2026/0028

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for one building of 6 flats (min 6, max 6) on a grassed plot at the end of a terrace

Homes

6

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

development-plan-only

Development plan policies

Burnley Local Plan 2018 SP1, SP5, SP6, HS3, NE2

Main issues

suitability of site for residential development; character and appearance; loss of open space

Summary

Permission in principle for six flats on a small grassed plot at the end of a terrace in urban Burnley. Allowed. The plot was not designated open space and had no evidenced green infrastructure function beyond limited visual relief, so its loss complied with local plan SP6. The decision is entirely development-plan-led: no 2026 Framework policy is cited, and the inspector decided without inviting comments on the new Framework.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "As there are no substantive changes relevant to the appeal before me, I am satisfied that no interested parties would be prejudiced by my determining the appeal without seeking representations on the revised Framework" (DL ¶5).
• Open space / green infrastructure — SP6, NE2: ACCORD. "There is no compelling evidence that it performs a significant recreational, ecological or strategic green infrastructure function … Its principal value appears to be aesthetic, providing a degree of openness and relief within a densely developed urban environment although limited by its small scale" (DL ¶11). "the harm arising from the loss of the green infrastructure would be small" (DL ¶12). NE2 does not apply to undesignated land; supporting text "does not form part of the policy itself" (DL ¶10).
• Density — HS3. "The provision of 6 flats on the appeal site would equate to approximately 309 dph … this largely reflects that the proposal relates to flats rather than dwellinghouses. The level of built form would be unlikely to be significantly greater than that which might arise from 3 dwellings" (DL ¶9).
• Housing supply. "Whilst the Council can demonstrate a housing land supply that exceeds 5 years, this is not a maximum target" (DL ¶14).
• Parking / amenity at PIP stage. Relevant only "insofar as they relate to the type and quantum"; on-street parking could absorb six flats in an accessible urban location (DL ¶16-17).

Planning balance

No balance run: the proposal complied with SP1, SP5, SP6, HS3 and NE2 and was therefore suitable in location, land use and amount (DL ¶13, 18). The S3(1)(c)/S4 presumption is not mentioned.

What made the difference

The absence of any designation or evidenced function for the grass plot. The council's objection rested on loss of open space, but without a Protected Open Space designation or evidence of recreational/ecological use, the inspector found only small aesthetic harm, compatible with SP6 which "does not preclude the loss of green infrastructure assets" (DL ¶10). A designated or functionally connected open space would have engaged NE2 (and potentially HC7 under S4(2)(a)(ii)).

Transferable points

• A five-year supply "is not a maximum target" and does not count against a compliant scheme (DL ¶14).
• Undesignated amenity grass with no evidenced function can be lost where GI policy seeks mitigation rather than prohibition (DL ¶10-12).
• High dph figures for flats can be discounted where built form matches the equivalent terraced houses (DL ¶9).
• Some inspectors are treating the 2026 Framework as making "no substantive changes" for plan-compliant urban PIPs and deciding without consultation (DL ¶5).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Mown grass plot at the end of a row of 2-storey terraces; indicative scheme continues the terrace with 3 ground and 3 first-floor flats
• About 309 dwellings per hectare against a local plan minimum of 25 dph
• No green infrastructure audit submitted; larger open space and landscaping to the south
• Council can demonstrate more than a five-year housing land supply (figure not stated)
• Decided without seeking comments on the 2026 Framework; no 2026 NPPF policy is cited

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.