- Decision
- dismissed, 7 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S Hartley
- Authority
- Rotherham (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6011039
- Application reference
- RB2025/1462
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of building from B2 (general industrial) to Class E(c)(iii) services (hair, beauty, nails, massage, tattoo; appointment only)
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR6
- Development plan policies
- Rotherham Sites and Policies 2018 SP26, Core Strategy 2014 CS14
- Main issues
- highway safety
Summary
Change of use of a small industrial building in Swinton to hair and beauty services. The appeal was dismissed on highway safety under TR6. The access is 4.5 m wide close to a junction, with obstructed visibility. A claimed lawful B2 fallback was not proven, and there was in any case no comparative transport assessment.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The Framework is of "'critical importance' … In respect of the main issue, the Framework has not materially changed the national planning policy position. The relevant national decision-making policy in the Framework is policy TR6" (DL ¶2).
- Highway safety: FAIL. "I do not find the width of the access road to be sufficient to allow two vehicles to pass each other safely … any use of the building has the potential for a vehicle(s) to have to reverses back into the B classified road" (DL ¶10). "This is not a safe arrangement" (DL ¶11).
- Fallback. The lawful B2 use was not established on the balance of probability. "In any event … I do not have sufficient information before me of a relative assessment in intensity/traffic terms (i.e., a transport assessment)" (DL ¶13-14).
- Conditions. The inspector had "concerns about their enforceability relating to appointments and/or the number of customers" (DL ¶16).
- Conclusion. The proposal "fails to accord with the highway safety requirements of policy TR6 of the Framework" (DL ¶17).
Planning balance
Plan-led. Economic benefits and reuse of previously developed land did not outweigh the conflict (DL ¶19-20). No S4 balance was set out.
What made the difference
The absence of a comparative transport assessment. Even an arguable fallback needs a relative traffic comparison before it can offset a substandard access. This is the same evidential failure as Gosport (PINS-6011101).
Transferable points
- TR6 is applied as the national test for highway safety. A substandard access at an existing building can defeat even a low-intensity use (DL ¶10-17).
- A fallback argument needs both proof of lawful use and a relative transport assessment (DL ¶13-15).
- Conditions capping appointments or customers may be refused as unenforceable (DL ¶16).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR6 | fail | 4.5 m access too narrow for two vehicles to pass, 10 m from a junction on a B road; exit visibility to the left obstructed; pedestrians and bus stops nearby; no comparative transport assessment (DL 10-17) | |
| SP26 (Rotherham S&P) | conflict | traffic circulation and management (DL 17) | |
| E2 | benefit | "some economic benefits" and reuse of previously developed land did not outweigh (DL 19) |
Key facts
- Allocated industrial and business land; principle of the use not disputed
- Claimed lawful B2 fallback not proven (aerial photos and one 2025 utility bill insufficient for 10 years' use)
- Conditions limiting appointments or customer numbers held unenforceable
- Parties not re-consulted; the Framework "has not materially changed the national planning policy position" (DL 2)
Related decisions
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.