- Decision
- allowed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: H Jones (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer J Reed)
- Authority
- Sunderland (North East)
- Appeal reference
- 6004934
- Application reference
- 25/02408/ful
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Front extension and part change of use of a terraced house to a single-chair hair salon
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S3
- Development plan policies
- Sunderland Core Strategy and Development Plan 2020 HS1, BH1, ST2, ST3, Sunderland UDP 1998 EN10
- Main issues
- living conditions; highway safety (parking); suitability of location
Summary
Front extension and part change of use of a mid-terrace house in Donwell to a single-chair hair salon. Allowed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. A conditioned management plan kept activity and parking demand low, and the neighbourhood-compatibility policy did not bar a different use class.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I am satisfied that the Framework’s content does not affect the substance of the main issues in the appeal." (DL ¶4). The parties were not consulted.
- Living conditions and parking: acceptable. Bus stops are near, so "sustainable transport modes, such as walking and bus travel would be likely to provide a realistic option for some salon clients" (DL ¶11).
- Location (UDP EN10). The policy does not contain "any criterion or provision requiring development proposals to be refused solely because they would introduce a use falling within a different use class from that which predominates in the surrounding area" (DL ¶14).
- Framework. "I conclude that no adverse effects would arise from the development, nor any conflict with the Framework’s decision-making policies. Therefore, the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development indicates that the proposed development should be permitted." (DL ¶19).
Planning balance
Plan-led: accords with the development plan as a whole, and the S3 presumption points the same way (DL ¶19).
What made the difference
The management plan (one client at a time, ten a day, daytime hours) secured by condition.
Transferable points
- A home-business conversion can be made acceptable by a conditioned operational management plan limiting throughput and hours (DL ¶8, ¶18).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S3 | pass | no adverse effects and no conflict with the decision-making policies, so the presumption indicates permission; S4 not named (DL 19) | |
| P3 | neutral | mapped; living conditions acceptable with management plan (single chair, max 10 clients a day, 09:00-18:00 Mon-Sat) secured by condition; Framework not cited on this issue (DL 8-9) | |
| TR6 | neutral | mapped; low, dispersed parking demand, no parking stress seen, bus stops nearby; Framework not cited on this issue (DL 10-13) |
Key facts
- Appeal planning officer site visit and recommendation, adopted by the inspector (DL 2, 20)
- [object Object]
- UDP EN10 (compatibility with neighbourhood use) does not require refusal merely because a different use class is introduced (DL 14)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.