Burnley Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Burnley?
Learn how selected local examples treated neighbour privacy, outlook and overbearing development.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 33
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- of 15 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
Overbearing outlook, privacy and dormers in Burnley
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set and give conclusions, not earlier measurements or drawings. Appeal 82813 concerns future apartment occupiers, at the edge of this neighbour issue.
Counted against appeals
Overbearing outlook from extensions
Side extension reduced outlook
The Inspector concluded that the side extension would result in unacceptable harm to No 40's outlook through an overbearing effect.
Scheme harmed neighbours' outlook
The Inspector found the two-storey rear and single-storey side extension harmful through overbearing impact and lack of outlook.
Helped or needed
Privacy and dormer conclusions
Balcony did not harm privacy
The Inspector concluded that the side extension and rear balcony would not harm neighbours' living conditions through loss of privacy.
Dormer caused no unacceptable harm
For the raised ridge and rear dormer, the Inspector concluded there would be no unacceptable harm to neighbours' living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify overbearing impact, reduced outlook, or both?
- Does it name the neighbour whose outlook would be affected?
- Does it explain any claimed loss of privacy from your proposal?
The selected examples do not show the earlier analysis, measurements or drawings behind the Burnley conclusions. 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
2 examples
1 September 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the raising of the existing ridge and new dormer to rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the appearance of the area and, • the living conditions of the occupiers [address] with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that there would be no unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene or to the living conditions of neighbouring dwellings. As such, the proposal would comply with the development plan. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise. Therefore, I find that the appeal should be allowed.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 4
5 December 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Proposed two storey side extension including steel frame balcony to rear elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers by way of loss of privacy. Policies HS5 and SP5 of the BLP require developments to not have a detrimental impact on the amenity reasonably expected to be enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers by reason of overlooking. The proposal therefore accords with the aforementioned policies.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
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 find that the appeal scheme would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address] and [address] arising from an overbearing impact and lack of outlook. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SP5, HS4 and HS5 of the BLP (2018). These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that developments do not result in any unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupants. It would further conflict with guidance set out in the [name] (2022) and objectives set out at Section 12 of the Framework, including to promote a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
15 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
conversion and extension of the existing building to form a total of 12 no. apartments.
Issue identified by the Inspector
These are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the setting of the [name] listed [name] 121 and of the Leeds and [name] as a non-designated heritage asset; • Whether living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed apartments would be satisfactory; and • The effect on the provision of public open space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Nevertheless, living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed apartments at Flats 4, 8 and 9 would not be satisfactory for the reasons given. There would be conflict with Policy SP5 in this respect and, in turn, with Policy HS4.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
21 June 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and (ii) on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling in relation to outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 40 by reason of an overbearing outlook. Of the policies quoted by the Council, I consider Policy HS5 of the Local Plan to be most relevant and find that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity reasonably expected to be enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring property by a reduction in outlook.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3