Four-person HMO at 145 Nairne Street, Burnley

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Burnley Development Control Committee on 10 Jul 2025.

FUL/2025/0327RefusedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a three-bedroom dwelling into a four-bedroom HMO for up to four occupants, with no external works.

“The property is a three bedroom, two-storey coursed stone and blue slate end- terrace house of traditional construction, on a row with other terraced properties within a predominately residential area. The property has a rear yard. The immediate surrounding area contains ten small HMOs that are within 100 metres of the application site and located in the Trinity Ward.”

“This application seeks planning permission for the change of use and conversion of a dwelling into a four-bedroom HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) for a maximum of four occupants. No external works are proposed, with limited internal reconfiguration works to allow for the conversion. The proposal additionally includes lineation of areas for bin storage and secure bicycle storage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a traditional two-storey end-terrace house in a mainly residential area, with ten small HMOs within 100 metres.

“The property is within the development boundary limits of the Principal Town of Burnley as defined by the Local Plan and has an Article 4 Direction within the ward of Trinity to protect local amenity and the wellbeing of this area by removing permitted development rights for the change of use from Use Class C3 (dwellinghouses) to Use Class C4 (Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) (three to six individual occupiers)).”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the site was sustainable, the accommodation met standards, and the proposal was not expected to harm neighbours or highway conditions.

“Section38(6) of the PCPA 2004 requires applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

“In conclusion, the proposal is acceptable in principle and is considered to be within a sustainable location. Although the representations of objection have been carefully considered, the proposal would have an acceptable impact on highway conditions, the living conditions of occupants and the living conditions of nearby occupants. Other issues do not raise significant or fundamental concerns.”

Officer report

Outdoor space was limited

The proposal provided space for drying clothes, bicycles and waste but did not demonstrate an external seating area for occupants.

“Policy HS4 requires new housing development to provide private and functional outdoor space for occupants, including communal provision where appropriate. The National Design Guide reinforces the importance of external amenity space in supporting health and wellbeing and acknowledges appropriate solutions will vary by their context.”

Officer report

Objections received

Three objections raised concerns about existing HMOs, parking, disorder, road conditions and the loss of rented family homes.

“There have been three representations of objections. They raise the following issues:”

“Already 6 HMOs on the block. • Impact on parking. • Problems with police chasing drug addicts and dealers. • The street is in an unfit state of repair causing damage to road users’ vehicles. • Not enough rented family properties in the area.”

Officer report

The committee vote

The committee took a named vote and carried a resolution to refuse the application against the officer recommendation.

“As the decision was contrary to officer recommendation a named vote was taken as follows:”

“To refuse the application (contraryto officer recommendation) (Resolution) Councillor Mohammed Ishtiaq Against Councillor Martyn Hurt For Councillor Aurangzeb Ali Abstain Councillor Gordon Birtwistle For Councillor Sue Graham For Councillor John Harbour For Councillor Bill Horrocks Against Councillor Alan Hosker For Councillor Shah Hussain For Councillor Jacqueline Inckle For Councillor Jack Launer For Councillor Mike Steel For Carried…”

Minutes

The decision and reason

The application was refused because inadequate private outdoor amenity space would create unacceptable living conditions for future occupants.

“The proposal fails to provide adequate private outdoor amenity space for the future occupants of the proposed House in Multiple Occupation and, as such, would result in unacceptable living conditions for future users and occupiers of the development, contrary to policy SP5 (2(h)) of Burnley’s Local Plan (2018) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

The resolution gives these reasons:

“REASON The proposal fails to provide adequate private outdoor amenity space for the future occupants of the proposed House in Multiple Occupation and, as such, would result in unacceptable living conditions for future users and occupiers of the development, contrary to policy SP5 (2(h)) of Burnley’s Local Plan (2018) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Burnley Development Control Committee minutes, 10 July 2025
  • 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 10 July 2025
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Refused, against officer advice
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

5 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →