Wooden garden shed in South-East corner of the garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2026 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011155 Isles House, Arbory Drive, Padiham, Lancashire BB12 8JS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Adam Sykes against the decision of Burnley Borough Council. • The application Ref is HOU/2026/0002. • The development proposed is wooden garden shed in South-East corner of the garden. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for wooden garden shed in South-East corner of the garden at Isles House, Arbory Drive, Padiham, Lancashire BB12 8JS, in accordance with the submitted details and the ‘Images of Garden Shed’ document. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. For conciseness I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice, however I have removed the term retrospective from the description as this is not a form of development. The development I observed on site appears to largely reflect the plans and description of development. 4. As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). 5. A Revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. There have been some layout and subsequent paragraph numbering changes, as well as minor relevant alterations to the ways in which heritage matters are considered. I am however satisfied that, having reviewed the relevant changes, they do not have a material bearing on the substance of the main issue or indeed the arguments of the main parties thereon. Since they would not therefore be prejudiced, I have proceeded without further consultation. Main Issue 6. The main issues of the development are; Appeal Decision 6011155 2 • its effect on the setting of the nearby Grade II listed building, Isles House, and the extent to which it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Padiham Conservation Area (CA). • its effect on the nearby non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) 90 West Street (No 90). Reasons for the Recommendation Conservation Area & Setting of Listed Building 7. The significance of the CA derives from the harmony created by its traditional materials, fine-grained townscape, cheek-by-jowl development pattern and the relative intactness of its historic built environment, which together allow the area's historic evolution to be readily understood and appreciated. West Street is characterised by a row of uniform cottages with modest front gardens. Opposite, the rear gardens and courtyards of properties on Whalley Road, together with their boundary walls, gates and occasional garages or outbuildings, are visible within this part of the conservation area. 8. Isles House was listed in 1990 (Ref: 1273919) and dates from the 19th century. I find that the special interest of the listed building derives from the dwelling’s grand principal elevation due to its symmetrical fenestration layout with a central entrance and its relationship with the street scene. The substantial and formalised garden area which fronts West Street forms an important component of the listed building's setting, allowing its scale, architectural composition and status to be appreciated from the public realm. Whilst the principal elevation is highly visible from the street scene, the garden area itself is enclosed by a stone wall which substantially screens views into the garden area when viewed from West Street. 9. Although the shed is partially visible above the boundary wall, ancillary domestic structures, garages, outbuildings and enclosed garden spaces already form part of the character of this section of West Street. As such, the development is viewed within a context where small-scale domestic development is an established feature. Given its modest scale, traditional timber construction and limited visibility, it does not appear discordant within the street scene, nor does it disrupt the established grain, enclosure or spatial character of the conservation area. 10. As set out above, the top half of the shed structure is visible from West Street. Whilst the upper part of the shed is visible from West Street, it does not automatically mean there is harm to the listed building or conservation area. The structure is of simple and typical domestic design and materials, and the dark colour lessens its visibility and prominence under the shadowy canopy of trees and the surrounding foliage. It therefore appears as a subordinate feature within the garden rather than a structure competing with or distracting from the appreciation of the listed building. It does not interrupt key views of the principal elevation or diminish the ability to appreciate the building's architectural qualities and historic relationship with the street. Consequently, the proposal has a neutral effect and preserves the significance of the listed building and its setting, and the listed building continues to make a positive contribution to the CA. 11. Whilst domestic outbuildings are more commonly positioned to the rear of dwellings, Isles House occupies an uncommon plot arrangement whereby access is taken from the rear of the site, via Arbory Drive, and visitors reach the principal Appeal Decision 6011155 3 elevation by passing through the front garden. Consequently, whilst the garden makes a positive contribution to the setting of the listed building and the appreciation of its significance, it also functions as the property's principal private amenity space. In these circumstances, I do not find the presence of a modest domestic outbuilding, within the garden, to be inherently inappropriate. Given its modest scale, limited visibility and subordinate appearance, the shed does not detract from the formal character of the garden or the positive contribution it makes to the setting and significance of the listed building and CA. The use of the shed for the storage of equipment associated with the maintenance of the garden further supports its appropriateness in this location. 12. Given the above I conclude that the proposal preserves the setting of the Grade II listed building and the character and appearance of the Padiham Conservation Area. This satisfies the requirements of the Act, and accords with policies HE5, HE6 and HE9 of the Framework and policy HE2 of the Burnley Local Plan (2018)(LP). Collectively, these require that development affecting Conservation Area’s and Listed Building’s to maintain the aspects of the setting which contribute to its significance, including views into and out of it and the general relationship between the asset and the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. Non-Designated Heritage Asset 13. The adjacent neighbour is No 90, which is a NDHA as it is included within the Council’s Local List. Its significance derives from its cottage like appearance and its uniformity within a row of other cottages, and the modest, and open front garden areas that serve each dwelling. Policy HE7 of the Framework relates to NDHA, and requires that where harm is identified, it is weighed against any benefits of the scheme. 14. Whilst the development is seen within the context of the NDHA, its modest scale, simple domestic appearance and limited projection above the boundary wall ensures that the cottage-like character, form and uniformity of No 90 together with the group of historic dwellings remain readily appreciable. As such, the proposal neither detracts from the significance of the non-designated heritage asset nor diminishes its contribution to the character of the surrounding area. 15. Therefore, the development does not appear prominent or incongruous within the street scene and has a neutral effect on the NDHA. It does not prevent the cottage from being appreciated or maintained, and therefore I have not identified any harm in this regard, which satisfies the requirements of Policy HE7 of the Framework, and accords with LP policy HE3 which requires that proposals affecting the setting of a non-designated heritage asset will be required to give due consideration to its significance and ensure that this is protected or enhanced where possible. Other Matters 16. Concern has been raised that the development causes overshadowing, loss of sunlight and increased disturbance to neighbouring properties. Whilst limited shadowing may occur at certain times of day, I have not been provided with detailed evidence to demonstrate that the development results in a material loss of daylight or sunlight. Furthermore, the outbuilding is used for incidental domestic purposes and there is nothing to suggest that its use results in materially greater levels of noise or disturbance than would ordinarily be expected within a residential environment. Appeal Decision 6011155 4 17. The occupiers of No 90 state that they are responsible for maintaining the gable wall and that the development restricts access for inspection and repair. Whilst I acknowledge these concerns, issues relating to private rights, covenants, obligations contained within title deeds and access arrangements between neighbouring landowners are civil matters and do not, in themselves, determine whether planning permission should be granted. In any event, my observations on site demonstrated that a gap remains between the structures to facilitate maintenance. 18. Whether this gap results in a reduction of daylight reaching the gable wall of No 90, potentially resulting in moss growth and potential moisture ingress, is unclear and no detailed evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that this is a likely consequence of the development. On the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that the development would result in such harm. 19. I have also not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that there is real potential fire risk associated with the timber structure. In any case fire safety and compliance with Building Regulations are controlled under separate legislation. 20. Regarding the planting of laurel trees, I have not been provided with evidence demonstrating that the planting would result in planning harm. Any future maintenance of planting would remain a matter for the landowner. Conclusion and Recommendation 21. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Ellie Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 22. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. B Plenty INSPECTOR