24 studio student rooms at Wrights Upholstery, Burnley
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Burnley Development Control Committee on 12 Feb 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought student accommodation comprising 24 studio bedrooms, with external alterations including a higher rear extensions roof.
“Proposal: Change of use to Student Accommodation (Sui Generis) comprising of 24no. studio bedrooms with associated external alterations including increasing the rear extensions roof height.”
Minutes
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approving the application with conditions.
“FUL/2025/0464 Wrights Upholstery, Claremont Street, Burnley Part One Plan Paul Gatrell – Head of Housing & Development Control Town Hall Manchester Road Burnley BB11 9SA”
“Application Recommended for Approved with conditions…”
Officer report
The committee vote
A named vote was held because the motion opposed the officer recommendation; Councillor Ali did not vote, and the motion was carried.
“As the motion that was moved and seconded was contrary to officer recommendation, a named vote was subsequently taken. As Councillor Ali had not been present for the whole of this item he did not take part in the vote.”
“Motion to Refuse Application Contrary to Officer Recommendation (Resolution) Councillor Mohammed Ishtiaq Abstain Councillor Martyn Hurt For Councillor Aurangzeb Ali No vote recorded Councillor Gordon Birtwistle For Councillor Joanne Broughton For Councillor Sue Graham For Councillor Bill Horrocks Abstain Councillor Alan Hosker For Councillor Shah Hussain For Councillor Jacqueline Inckle For Councillor Lubna Khan For Councillor Jack Launer For Councillor Mike Steel Conflict…”
Minutes
Why permission was refused
The committee refused the proposal over communal facilities, outdoor space, neighbouring noise, disabled parking and worsening on-street parking problems.
“The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development would provide sufficient communal student facilities and outdoor amenity space to meet future occupants needs. The proposal therefore fails to demonstrate that it provides acceptable conditions for future users in accordance with Local Plan Policy SP5 h).”
“The application site is located in an area which is known to suffer from significant on- street parking problems and the lack of parking provision proposed by the scheme would exacerbate on on-street parking problems contrary to Local Plan Policy IC3 1 c).”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The resolution gives these reasons:
“REASONS 1. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development would provide sufficient communal student facilities and outdoor amenity space to meet future occupants needs. The proposal therefore fails to demonstrate that it provides acceptable conditions for future users in accordance with Local Plan Policy SP5 h). 2. The proposal would introduce a student use into a residential area and is a use which has the potential to generate noise at antisocial times which would be unacceptably detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Burnley Development Control Committee minutes, 12 February 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 12 February 2026
- 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)
- All decisions
- Burnley committee decisions →
This committee's year
25 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 2 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.