# 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 - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, l2-1-d-curtilage, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, ndha, conservation-area, design-refusal, self-build, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** low harm to Padiham CA - dwelling built into the boundary wall, conspicuous corner position, loss of burial-ground spaciousness (DL 9-13, 15, 18) - **HE7(2): harm.** "moderately high scale of harm" to the boundary wall as NDHA (DL 8, 14-15) - **HE6(4): fail.** CA and NDHA harms together outweigh moderate housing and limited other benefits (DL 16-18) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 20) - **L2(1)(d): fail.** garden development not consistent with the street scene; routed through S4(2)(a)(ii) (DL 29-30) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(1) conflict "in the absence of clear justification", so should be refused; significant adverse factor (DL 30) - **P3: conflict (moderate weight).** mapped: gable under 15 m from terrace windows, moderate overbearing harm to outlook; daylight acceptable (25-degree test) (DL 21-25) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling in a sustainable location in a Key Service Centre; self-build limited weight, no evidence of unmet need (DL 16-17) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by heritage and amenity harms (DL 29-31) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011037 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3697bc16-dcd0-4a4d-8d08-174740b02c69 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011037.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.