# 105 Wellburn Road, Donwell, Washington (hair salon)

- **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
- **Tags:** tier-2, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement, living-conditions, parking-stress-unevidenced

## 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
- **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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004934
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/10fcd6d0-b9af-4bac-8862-24fb2abf6bf2

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004934.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.