Appeal 6006511

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council refers to the appeal property as a locally listed building. However, the Padiham Conservation Area Management Plan 2017 (PCAMP) contains a plan at part 12.1 which does not identify it as such. Nonetheless, the appeal site is located within the Padiham Conservation Area (CA). The main issues are therefore whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA; and b) its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No. 5) with specific regard to privacy.

The appeal property is in a residential area and when viewed from the rear, is read in context with the three adjoining terraced properties of the same design, forming a uniform row. The row is set on land that slopes steeply down towards the rear, such that their front elevations appear two storeys in height, while their rear elevations present as three. It is adjoined by four later dwellings which extends the original terrace.

The original row exhibits a uniformity through shared architectural features at the rear, including two storey bay windows, a regular arrangement of vertical windows with full stone surrounds, and the consistent use of stone for the external walls. These features are also replicated in the newer terraces, establishing a coherent and continuous building rhythm along the entire row. Collectively, these elements reinforce the traditional consistency of the terrace, making a positive contribution to the architectural significance of the CA.

The balcony would have a notably modern and boxy appearance, due to its steel framing, glass balustrade and side screen. This would jar against the traditional architecture and material palette of the host dwelling and wider row. It would also cut across the bay windows and disrupt their vertical continuity, undermining the quality of the established rhythm of the two storey bays along the terrace.

Its width, spanning almost the full extent of the rear elevation, combined with its first floor siting and forward projection, would emphasise its prominence. This impact would be further intensified by the drop in garden levels to the rear which would increase its perceived scale. As such, by reason of its design, materials, scale and position, it would appear as a dominating and discordant addition. Although located to the rear, the balcony would be clearly visible from private views in neighbouring rear gardens and from semi-public views within the adjacent car park.

For these reasons, the proposal would neither preserve, nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Given its localised effect, the harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Even so, I am mindful that the conservation of the CA is a matter of considerable importance and weight. In such circumstances, the harm should be weighed against the proposal’s public benefits.

No clear public benefits have been put forward by the appellant. The primary outcome of the development, namely the provision of a raised external space, would be a private benefit. As such, there are insufficient public benefits to which one can ascribe sufficient weight to outweigh the harm I have identified and the great weight I have given to the heritage asset’s conservation.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policies HE1, HE2, and SP5 of Burnley’s Local Plan 2018 (BLP), the Framework and the PCAMP. Together, and amongst other things, these policies and guidance seek to identify and protect Burnley’s historic environment, to sustain and enhance its significance and for proposals to be of a high standard of design.

The appeal property adjoins No. 5. Both dwellings feature a long, narrow garden, with No. 5 having a patio space leading from their rear patio door and a garden area beyond this.

The proposed balcony would be sited close to the shared boundary with No. 5. It would extend across the rear up to the edge of the bay window, with the whole frontage incorporating a glass balustrade. As such, given its proximity, size and design, it would allow the occupiers of the appeal property to have direct views, from an elevated position, into No. 5’s rear outdoor areas. This would result in a significant loss of privacy and unacceptably reduce the quality of experience for the users of the space.

Whilst outlooks into No. 5’s rear garden already occur from the appeal property’s existing rear windows, the proposed balcony would project forward of these and intensify the degree of overlooking. It would also increase the perception of overlooking for this neighbouring occupier when using their rear patio and garden. This impact would be exacerbated by the close-knit arrangement of the terraced properties, which would make any overlooking more immediate and pronounced.

Whilst the proposed privacy screen to the side facing No. 5 would prevent any side on views, it would not entirely prevent intrusive sightlines from the front of the balcony, where views along the wide frontage would still be possible into this neighbouring garden. The proposal would thus cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 5, with specific regard to privacy. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policies HS5 and SP5 of the BLP; the Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2022; and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these policies and guidance require development proposals to not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupants, by retaining acceptable levels of privacy.

The Nazareth Unitarian Chapel has a notable and imposing presence on [address] due to its tall spire, ornate detailing to its large openings and weathered sandstone exterior. Its significance is drawn from its architectural, historical and cultural interest as a place of worship. Whilst the proposal would be in close proximity, it would be sited towards the rear of this listed building and would form part of a terraced row that is visually, spatially and architecturally distinct from the church. As such, it would not impinge on its significance, especially given its location within a residential area, where a variety of domestic alterations and extensions have already occurred.

For the reasons given above, the proposals would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.