A fitness centre appeal in Ribble Valley has overturned the refusal of permission for a coaching and training facility within an existing rural commercial unit. Inspector Richard Gilbert found that the small-scale use could operate outside a town centre and would retain an employment-generating activity, despite the council’s objections.
The decision was issued on 12 November 2026 for Unit 2, Woodfield Business Centre, beside the A59 at Clayton le Dale near Blackburn. The appeal, reference 6011956, concerned Ribble Valley Borough Council’s refusal of application 3/2022/1034 to change the unit’s permitted use from Class E(g) to Class E(d).
The fitness centre appeal is particularly relevant to businesses working with older planning permissions and employment policies. The Inspector distinguished the actual planning condition restricting this unit’s use from the broader modern Use Class E, then tested the proposal against the revised August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.
Why the fitness centre appeal succeeded
The site had permission from 2021 for a commercial building subject to a condition limiting its use to Class E(g). That subcategory covers offices, research and development and light industry. The operator sought to use the premises for personal training, coaching, therapy, nutrition and fitness services, activities that the Inspector classified as Class E(d).
The condition mattered. Both subcategories sit within Use Class E, but the earlier permission specifically restricted the land use. It was therefore not sufficient to assume that moving between E(g) and E(d) required no further planning permission. Planning Geek’s Use Class E guidance explains how the modern category works and why the planning history still needs checking.
The application was received in December 2022, but the council did not issue its refusal until 9 January 2026. The appellant confirmed that the use had begun meanwhile. The Inspector nevertheless decided the section 78 appeal on the development described in the application form and plans, and ultimately granted permission subject to controls appropriate to an operating fitness facility.
A rural exception to the town centre sequential test
One objection was that a fitness centre is a main town centre use being proposed outside the town centre. The Inspector agreed with the classification but said it did not settle the policy issue. Under policy TC3(5) of the revised 2026 Framework, the sequential test does not apply to small-scale rural offices or other small-scale rural development.
For the fitness centre appeal, the Inspector treated rural development in its ordinary sense as development located in the countryside. The existing building measured approximately 10 metres by 18 metres, with a partial first floor. The application involved a change of use, rather than constructing an additional large building. On those facts, the Inspector judged the development to be small scale.
The Inspector also rejected the idea that an activity normally associated with a town centre could not be a rural service. Rural residents need access to training, recreation and health-related facilities. The proposal could serve surrounding villages without necessarily requiring a journey into a larger town, and its modest scale brought it within the relevant national exception.
That distinction does not exempt all rural gyms from a sequential test. A substantially larger fitness complex, a materially different catchment or a site outside the policy’s small-scale exception may require a different assessment. Planning Geek’s town centre sequential test guide provides the broader context for applications involving shops, leisure and other centre uses.
Older employment policies were not a complete bar
The council also argued that the proposal would remove employment floorspace protected under its development plan. Local policy DMB1 assessed the conversion of premises with employment potential, while the council understood the relevant employment classes largely by reference to offices, industrial activity and storage or distribution.
The fitness centre appeal challenged that narrow reading. The facility would provide three jobs and remain an employment-generating use. The Inspector noted that some of the council’s supporting employment evidence dated from 2013 and 2014, well before the 2020 changes that brought formerly separate uses together under Class E.
The Inspector’s reasoning was specific: I am not persuaded that the term ‘employment’ or ‘employment generating use’ should be restricted to the Council’s definition
. The old documents could inform policy interpretation, but they did not establish that a coaching and fitness operation providing jobs should be treated as inherently incompatible with the local employment policies.
The Inspector recognised a separate policy document concerning land allocated for former B1, B2 and B8 uses. Its full wording was not before the Inspector, who did not assume that it ruled out the proposal. The decision found no conflict with the employment policy on the evidence provided for this particular commercial unit.
This point is useful for applicants, councils and landlords dealing with historic B1 references in employment strategies and planning conditions. The 2020 restructuring of the Use Classes Order does not automatically rewrite the express restrictions on a permission, but it can materially affect how employment-generating activities are described and assessed in contemporary policy arguments.
Access by car was not decisive
The parties agreed that many customers would rely on private vehicles to reach the site. The Inspector found that this did not automatically amount to conflict with local policy DMG3, which addressed the provision of transport options and parking rather than identifying all car-reliant uses as unacceptable.
For the fitness centre appeal, the premises had access to a footway and nearby bus stops on Longsight Road. The existing A59 access was not judged to create unacceptable highway safety or capacity problems, and the council did not dispute that appropriate on-site parking was available.
The Inspector also considered the catchment realistically. Villages such as Mellor, Mellor Brook, Wilpshire, Osbaldeston and Salesbury are closer to this rural facility than to some of the borough’s larger centres. Making residents travel farther into towns for the same service would not necessarily reduce vehicle journeys overall.
Although the use would offer limited transport-related environmental benefits, reusing an existing building reduced the need for new construction. The Inspector considered that a small training business providing a community service in the countryside met the relevant local policy exception, while the August 2026 national policy offered further support.
Retrospective permission came with firm conditions
The appeal succeeded, but the Inspector did not give the operator unrestricted freedom to use the building. The permission is expressly confined to a coaching and fitness facility within Class E(d), with no other purpose permitted, including other activities that would otherwise fall within the same broad Class E.
Hours are limited to 6am to 10pm Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm on Saturdays and 8am to 2pm on Sundays and bank holidays. Parking and turning areas must remain available. These controls were imposed to safeguard neighbouring living conditions and ensure the site functions as assessed.
The Inspector also required the operator to submit details of cycle storage, an electric vehicle charging point and no-entry signs within one month of the decision. The conditions contain further deadlines and a requirement for the use to cease if the details are not approved and implemented in the prescribed periods. This reflects the fact that the activity had already begun.
The fitness centre appeal is therefore not authority for disregarding an earlier use restriction. The operator needed express permission for the particular change, and the new decision imposes a fresh and specific limitation. Planning Geek’s change of use guidance explains why the use-class label is only one stage of that assessment.
What the decision means for commercial occupiers
The practical lesson is to separate three questions: what the authorised use actually is under the relevant permission and its conditions, which Use Class best describes the proposed activity, and how the council’s development plan and current national policy weigh that activity. A favourable answer to any one question does not automatically answer the others.
It is also worth testing the evidence behind older local employment policies rather than accepting historic use-class terminology without examination. In this case, a small rural fitness use still generated jobs, did not demand a large new building and qualified for an exception to the national town centre sequential test.
Inspector Richard Gilbert allowed appeal 6011956 on 12 November 2026, subject to conditions. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The decision concerns the submitted scheme and the policy evidence before that Inspector, not a blanket exemption for other rural leisure uses.
0 Comments