# 23A Rowms Lane, Swinton, Rotherham (B2 to beauty/services)

- **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
- **Tags:** tr6-highway-safety, fallback-not-proven, conditions-unenforceable, no-consultation-on-2026-framework, small-business

## 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
- **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)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011039
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/df45323a-30e4-4b03-a4bf-f8a9d2a08390

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011039.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.