Appeal 6003568

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal would result in the loss of space for a community facility that should be retained.

The appeal building consists of a semi-detached property containing residential accommodation and separate space previously used as a salon. It is located in the village of Fairfield. The proposal seeks to incorporate the business space into the existing living accommodation, providing a family room and study amongst other uses. External changes to the building are also proposed.

Policy BDP12 of the Bromsgrove Local Plan (the Local Plan), adopted January 2017, seeks to retain existing services and facilities that meet a local need. Its supporting text makes clear that access to community facilities and services, including shops, are an essential element of sustainable and inclusive communities.

The policy resists the loss of existing facilities unless it can be demonstrated that there is no realistic prospect of the use continuing, or the facility can be provided effectively in another way. Another criterion is that the site has been actively marketed for a period of not less than 12 months (or made available for other services beneficial to the community), or where there are overriding environmental benefits to the use ceasing.

Similarly, throughout the District, Local Plan policy BDP18 seeks to resist the loss of a shop falling within Class A of the former [name] Order1 unless it is demonstrated to be unviable or not required by the community. The salon use of the appeal site would have constituted a Class A use under that Order, as a shop 1 The Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). for hairdressing, rather than being a non-residential institution (Class D1) as suggested by the appellant. Consequently, the proposal must be considered against the requirements of policies BDP12 and BDP18.

The existing commercial floorspace is small relative to the rest of the building but could be attractive to a new start-up business. It was last used as a salon in May 2025 and has remained vacant since then. Nevertheless, its permitted use is for commercial purposes (now Use Class E). Its size and a lack of footfall is said to have made the previous salon unviable. For over a year the appellant has sought to find another hairdresser to rent the space, but has found no interest.

However, the advertising of the property has only been by word of mouth, rather than consisting of an active marketing campaign undertaken by a professional estate agent. Nor do I have details, such as accounts, to demonstrate conclusively that the previous salon was not viable or could not be made so. As such, I am not convinced that the evidence of the appellant fully represents market signals.

The previous hairdresser now operates a business from her own home within the village. That said, I have few details of its operation. As a result, it may be limited in its scope, and so may not necessarily provide an alternative to a facility operated from the appeal site. Other commercial units are available elsewhere with beauty services in Catshill, not too far away. These could be accessed by sustainable travel modes such as walking, cycling or by bus. Even so, Catshill is a different area, and the policies seek to encourage facilities to meet the local needs of each community.

Parking limitations have been given as a further reason for the failure of the previous use of the shop. Nonetheless, parking space is available at the site, albeit shared with the existing residential use, and some people may choose to walk or cycle. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of a hairdressing, beauty or similar use re-starting in the appeal building, or that there is no demand for other uses of the space beneficial to the community.

Commercial use would generate some noise, but given its size this is unlikely to be significant. The appellant has raised concerns about the safeguarding of children that they foster at the accommodation. Nevertheless, the commercial space is physically subdivided from the residential use, with each having separate entrances and the dwelling having its own car port. The proposal would provide improved internal space for occupiers of the residential property. However, as a matter of planning judgement, the above advantages do not amount to overriding environmental benefits sufficient to justify the ceasing of the commercial use of the space.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would result in the loss of space for a community facility that should be retained. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan policies BLP12 and BLP18. It would similarly conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account local business needs.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.