Up to six flats at Land adjacent to 10 Hurtley Street, Burnley

“Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017”

“Proposal Permission in Principle for the erection of one building to accommodate up to 6no. flats. Location Land adjacent to 10 Hurtley Street, Burnley, BB10 1BY”

“This application relates to a flat rectangular shaped parcel of land adjacent to the junction of Hurtley Street and Elm Street.”

“The site was historically occupied by terraced properties which following demolition (unknown date) is now laid to grass. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL”

“No relevant planning history on the site.”

“The application site is not allocated for housing development under Local Plan Policy HS1. However, the site is located within Burnley’s development boundary and given its sustainable location with connections to means of public transportation, the proposal for up to six dwellings is considered an appropriate scale and compatible for the ‘Principal Town’ location.”

“The application form indicates the site has an area of 194 sqm (0.0194 hectares). The proposed development at the maximum of 6 flats would equate to approximately 309 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this represents a relatively high-density form of development, the small site area materially increases the density calculation.”

“County Highways – No objection • The parcel of land has some on street parking restrictions to two sides, with the third being a rear lane on which any vehicle parking could be construed as a vehicle obstructing the highway and should not be considered as a viable parking space.”

“The noise associated with the construction of the development will add to the existing level of noise in the area; • Increase in dust and dirt during construction; • Development would worsen condition of the roads and footways; • The development would not be in keeping with the area; • The proposal would have an overbearing effect to facing properties and restrict outlook; • Exacerbate parking problems in the area; and, • Would result in the removal of an area of grass…”

“As the motion that was moved and seconded was contrary to officer recommendation, a named vote was subsequently taken.”

“Motion to refuse contrary to officer recommendation (Resolution) Councillor Mohammed Ishtiaq Against Councillor Martyn Hurt For Councillor Aurangzeb Ali For Councillor Gordon Birtwistle Against Councillor Joanne Broughton For Councillor Sue Graham For Councillor John Harbour For Councillor Bill Horrocks Abstain Councillor Alan Hosker For Councillor Shah Hussain For Councillor Jacqueline Inckle Against Councillor Jack Launer Against Councillor Mike Steel For Councillor Mark…”

“The proposed development by reason of the quantum of development will result in the overdevelopment of the site and will result in the loss of open space which provides a valuable green space within a predominantly built-up area. As such the proposed development would be contrary to policies SP1, SP5, SP6, HS3 and NE2 of the Burnley Local Plan (July 2018).”