Burnley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Burnley?
See the design, size and view points in selected Burnley appeal reasons.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 25 of 33
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 12
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 23
- of 25 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Burnley LPA (53.778948, −2.221947). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Burnley Borough Council appeal findings
Burnley extensions: character and appearance
The selected examples include a greater share of allowed appeals than the matched local set. Dismissed extracts 78341 and 90440 state harm but not the physical feature.
Counted against appeals
Dismissed character-and-appearance conclusions
Area character harm
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the area's character and appearance.
Host dwelling harm
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Helped or needed
Allowed Burnley extension details
Rear extension size and design
The rear extension was modest and subordinate. It complemented the dwelling's design and materials, with a relatively distant view.
Porch and bay window scale
The porch and bay window were concluded not to harm the dwelling or area. The decision records requirements for appropriate type and scale.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal name the feature said to harm the area's appearance?
- Does it explain whether the extension's size or bulk is the concern?
- Does it identify a design, material or view said to cause harm?
All displayed examples concern extensions, so other proposal types are not illustrated (9787, 78341, 67346, 12311 and 90440). These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
3 examples
1 February 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a first-floor rear extension above existing single-storey extension, internal alterations and installation of a roof light to rear main roof plane.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Although there are no other first-floor additions, in my opinion, the terrace is of no particular architectural merit and it does not warrant preservation of the status quo. Although the extension would be visible from [address], it would be a relatively distant view and it would not be unduly prominent or harmful in the streetscene. In addition, the extension would be a relatively modest and subordinate addition and would complement the existing dwelling in terms of its design and external materials. Therefore, the proposal does not conflict with the policies of the LP or with the Framework, as referred to above.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
2 April 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
porch and bay window to front of dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the area. It would accord with policies SP5 and HS5 of Burnley’s Local Plan (2018) (LP) which together require new development is of a high standard of design, subordinate to the host building, and respects existing, or locally characteristic layouts, scale and massing. It would also not conflict with the provisions of LP Policy SP4 insofar as development is expected to be of an appropriate type and scale.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
15 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
single storey side extension and driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area and would not conflict with Policy HS5 of Burnley’s Local Plan (2018) which amongst other things seeks to ensure that extensions are of high quality in construction and design and are subordinate to the existing building.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
21 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey extension without complying with a
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Burnley Local Plan (2018) Policies SP5 and HS5; and to the Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2018), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
15 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed single storey side and two storey rear extension with internal alterations and site works.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address] and [address], with particular regard to any overbearing impact and outlook.
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SP5, HS5 and NE3 of the Burnley Local Plan (2018) (BLP). These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that house extensions are of a high standard of design, are subordinate to the existing dwelling and respectful of the existing context, including in relation to scale and massing. It would also conflict with general design policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3