Medical centre extension at 50 Parliament Street, Burnley

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Burnley Development Control Committee on 9 Jul 2026.

PA/2026/0104Approved

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey extension with four consultation rooms, a training/resource room, and a reconfigured entrance, reception and car park.

“Figure 3: Proposed East Elevation 2.2 The proposed extension provides four additional consulting rooms, training room and reconfigured entrance lobby and reception room.”

Officer report

Site and surroundings

The site is Burnley Wood Medical Centre beside a pharmacy, with a 20-bay car park accessed from Parliament Street and Crowther Street.

“The application site comprises the Burnley Wood Medical Centre, located at the corner of Parliament Street and Crowther Street. The site is rectangular in plan with the existing building adjacent to the eastern and partially along the southern boundary.”

“Adjacent to the boundary with Crowther Street is a pharmacy with the remaining space within the site a 20-bay car park accessed from Parliament Street and Crowther Street.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions included a 2017 single-storey medical-centre extension, a 2013 housing scheme, and the original doctors’ surgery permission in 1990.

“APP/2016/0577 - Single storey extension to the existing medical centre to create 5 more GP/treatment rooms. Approved February 2017.”

“APP/2013/0303 - Erection of 117 no. dwelling houses on largely cleared land (and including the demolition of 17 no. properties and Burnley Wood Community Centre. Glebe Street), formation of new access and car park to existing Burnley Wood Medical Centre, including the provision of new public footpath serving adjacent school premises. Approved November 2013.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension would enhance healthcare provision, while its remaining amenity and parking impacts were not considered sufficient to outweigh the benefits.

“Balanced against these benefits are the adverse impacts. The most significant concern relates to residential amenity, particularly in respect of Nos. 48 Parliament Street and 1 Burton Court. The proposed extension would inevitably result in some loss of outlook, daylight and sunlight when compared to the existing open aspect currently experienced by those properties.”

“The representations received have been carefully considered and relate principally to impacts on residential amenity, parking, highway safety and the scale of the extension. These matters have been fully assessed within this report and, whilst some concerns are acknowledged and carry weight in the planning balance, they are not considered sufficient, either individually or cumulatively, to outweigh the identified benefits of the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

County Highways, Environmental Health and Streetscene raised no objection, with highways and environmental conditions recommended.

“County Highways – No objection • S278 Agreement would be required for tactile paving, closure of access from Parliament Street and new single yellow lines. • Recommend planning conditions relating to the construction stage and for the highway works to be implemented prior to the use of the extension commencing.”

“Environmental Health – No objection • Recommends planning conditions relating to construction times and submission with approval of a dust management plan…”

Officer report

What people said

Five residents’ objections and one councillor objection concerned privacy, outlook, noise, overbearing effects and parking; one councillor supported the proposal.

“Loss of privacy and outlook for the adjacent properties that rear face the site; • Height and bulk will result in an overbearing impact to property and garden • Increase in noise and disturbance • Proposal does not provide sufficient parking and meaning many more cars will park on surrounding streets, exacerbating congestion and safety risks.”

“The parking spaces provided at the Surgery are well used by patients and visitors to the surgery, but seldom present a lack of suitable space in which to park. Any on street parking, if required, is usually in the immediate vicinity, only used for the duration of the patient’s appointment, and does not compromise local residents’ parking.”

Officer report

Main planning concerns

The report assessed effects on neighbouring light, outlook, privacy and noise, alongside highway safety and parking provision.

“The window openings are close to the boundary with the site and when open (especially during clement weather) have a high possibility of noise carrying over into the neighbouring properties and garden spaces. It is noted though that excess noise is not normally associated with a doctor’s surgery and would be similar to a residential property. The onus would be on the applicant to manage when windows are open, especially when considering patient confidentiality.”

“No objection has been raised by County Highways and as such it is considered the proposed extension and associated work within the site is acceptable in terms of highway safety. Whilst enabling works would be considered under separate legislation the securement under planning condition makes the application acceptable in respect of highway safety. Further conditions can be applied to manage construction activity and highway safety.”

Officer report

Committee decision

The committee approved the application subject to conditions, including construction controls, highway works, matching materials and obscured glazing for specified windows.

“details of the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; • details of loading and unloading of plant and materials; • arrangements for turning of vehicles within the site; • swept path analysis showing access for the largest vehicles regularly accessing the site and measures to ensure adequate space is available and maintained, including any necessary temporary traffic management measures; • measures to protect vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists); • …”

“Prior to the first use of the library/training room and consulting room within the extension hereby permitted, the windows serving those rooms in the elevation facing Burton Court shall be fitted with obscured glazing to a minimum of Pilkington Level 3 (or equivalent). The obscured glazing shall be installed before the rooms are first brought into use and shall thereafter be permanently retained as obscured glazing.”

Minutes

Sources

  • Burnley Development Control Committee minutes, 9 July 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Burnley's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Burnley
Date
Thursday 9 July 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Approved
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

33 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 3 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →