# 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
- **Tags:** PIP, within-settlement-s4, small-scheme, limited-nppf-engagement, no-consultation-on-2026-framework, housing-supply-5yr, density-l3

## 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
- **Burnley LP SP6: accord.** small privately owned mown grass plot, no evidenced recreational/ecological/strategic GI function; loss of green infrastructure "small" (DL 10-12)
- **Burnley LP NE2: not-engaged.** site not designated Protected Open Space; supporting-text reference to non-designated open space is not policy (DL 10)
- **Burnley LP HS3: accord.** 6 flats ≈ 309 dph, far above surroundings, but built form comparable to 3 terraced houses (DL 9)
- **HO7: neutral.** not cited; council has more than 5 years' supply, "this is not a maximum target" (DL 14)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010021
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4f0f3e97-3da9-484c-bd62-535f390c24fc

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010021.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.