Marton House, 31 West Street, Padiham

Decision

dismissed, 24 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: E Heron

Authority

Burnley (North West)

Appeal reference

6011037

Application reference

PA/2026/0065

Procedure

written representations

Development

Detached 1.5-storey (stated self-build) dwelling in the walled garden of a former chapel and burial ground

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(4), HE7(2), L2(1)(d), S4(2)(a)(ii), DP3(3), S4(1)

Development plan policies

Burnley Local Plan SP4, SP5, HE2, HE3, HS4

Main issues

character and appearance; conservation area and NDHA; living conditions

Summary

A new dwelling built into the stone boundary wall of the garden of a former chapel and burial ground in the Padiham Conservation Area. The inspector found low harm to the conservation area, moderately high harm to the wall as a non-designated heritage asset, and moderate harm to the outlook of a facing terrace. The scheme failed L2(1)(d) and DP3(1) without clear justification, both routes to refusal under S4(2). The benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties have had the opportunity to provide comments on it in relation to these appeals" (DL ¶3).
• CA: HARM, low. "would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶13).
• NDHA: HARM, moderately high. "The proposal would result in a moderately high scale of harm to the significance of the NDHA" (DL ¶14).
• Heritage balance: FAIL. "Whilst the harm to the CA would be low, considerable importance and weight attaches to its conservation ... Taken together, these heritage harms outweigh the public benefits arising from the development" (DL ¶18). No clear and convincing justification under HE4 (DL ¶20).
• Outlook: moderate harm (DL ¶23, ¶25).
• L2(1)(d) and DP3(3): FAIL. "the proposal would fail to comply with Policy L2 (1) (d) of the Framework" (DL ¶30). "in the absence of clear justification, the development also fails to comply with paragraph 1 of this policy ... Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 advises that in such circumstances, development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶30).

Planning balance

HE6(4) and HE7 run first (DL ¶15-18), then S4(1) with S4(2)(a)(ii) (L2(1)(d)) and S4(2)(c) (DP3(3)): "taken as a whole, these benefits are substantially outweighed by the identified heritage and amenity harms" (DL ¶31).

What made the difference

The wall. Building the dwelling into it destroyed the continuity that gives it and the conservation area their character. A detached dwelling set back from the wall and lower might have been different.

Transferable points

• L2(1)(d) garden development that is inconsistent with the street scene engages S4(2)(a)(ii) (DL ¶29-30).
• DP3(1) conflict "in the absence of clear justification" engages DP3(3) (DL ¶30).
• Combined low CA harm and "moderately high" NDHA harm outweigh one dwelling of moderate weight (DL ¶18).
• A local privacy distance can be met yet outlook still be harmed (DL ¶22-23).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Boundary wall treated as an NDHA reflecting the historic pattern and the burial ground (DL 7-8)
• Local Plan 15 m privacy distance to blank gable preferred to the council's 20 m, but outlook still harmed (DL 21-23)
• Self-build by condition argued; not pursued (DL 27)
• Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)

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.