# 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
- **Tags:** tier-2, tr6-highway-safety, fallback, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement

## 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
- **TR6(4): pass.** no severe network impact or unacceptable highway safety impact; parking, pedestrian crossing and refuse concerns unevidenced; LHA content with Highways Technical Note and Delivery Management Plan (DL 5-18)
- **TR3: pass.** mapped: district centre site "accessible by other sustainable travel modes", linked trips (DL 14); TR3 not named
- **P3: pass.** mapped: noise and activity acceptable with plant, insulation, hours conditions; Framework aim on living conditions met (DL 19-24)
- **HC5: neutral.** mapped: no evidence of concentration of takeaways harming health, vitality or antisocial behaviour; Hot Food Takeaway SPD noted (DL 25-26)
- **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of Grade II Trinity Methodist Church (DL 31)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005670
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cc91aa43-c74b-4a0a-a840-65e82efe372e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005670.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.