47 Huddersfield Road, Mirfield (bank to hot food takeaway)

Decision

allowed, 25 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: N Armstrong

Authority

Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6005670

Application reference

2025/62/90487/E

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of a vacant bank (Class E) to a hot food takeaway (sui generis) with extract equipment and external alterations

Site context

inside settlement, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

TR6(4)

Development plan policies

Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP13, LP21, LP22, LP24, LP52, Kirklees Hot Food Takeaway SPD 2022

Main issues

highway and pedestrian safety; living conditions

Summary

A Domino's takeaway in a vacant bank in Mirfield District Centre. The council refused on parking, pedestrian safety and amenity. The inspector found the concerns unevidenced: parking restrictions already control the frontage, customers can use nearby car parks, and noise can be conditioned. Applying TR6(4), there was no severe or unacceptable highway impact. Allowed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties "have had the opportunity to make any comments on the implications of that relevant to the appeal" (DL ¶3).
• Highways, TR6(4): PASS. "having regard to policy TR6(4) of the Framework, there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would have a severe adverse impact on the transport network or an unacceptable impact on highway safety in this location" (DL ¶17).
• Illegal parking. "there is nothing substantive before me to demonstrate such parking resulting in harm to highway safety would be an inevitable consequence of the proposal. In any event, the existing restrictions would be enforceable by the relevant authority outside of the planning process" (DL ¶12).
• Living conditions: PASS with conditions on plant, insulation and hours (DL ¶22-24).
• Fallback. Class E use has a "greater than theoretical possibility", given moderate weight (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

Plan-led: accords with the development plan as a whole and no material consideration indicates otherwise (DL ¶36). No S4 balance was run.

What made the difference

The council had no evidence that parking or crossing behaviour would cause harm, and its own highways officers were content. Existing restrictions and a secured delivery management plan answered the concerns.

Transferable points

• Fear that customers will park illegally is not a TR6(4) harm without evidence; the restrictions are enforceable outside planning (DL ¶12, ¶17).
• A delivery management plan can be secured by condition where deliveries are by employees, not third-party operators (DL ¶35).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• About 66% of trade by delivery (employees on e-bikes or mopeds); peak 1800-2000 Fri-Sat; no customer parking on site (DL 8-10)
• Double yellow lines, box junction at adjacent fire station access; council's fear of illegal parking unevidenced and enforceable outside planning (DL 11-12)
• Class E fallback greater than theoretical; moderate weight (DL 29)
• Delivery Management Plan secured by condition; hours 1100-2300 (conditions 6-7)
• Costs application by the appellant subject of a separate decision (DL 2), not in the corpus
• Parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.