A gym enforcement appeal in Ribble Valley has secured two additional months to comply with an enforcement notice, but the Inspector has upheld the requirement to stop using a commercial unit as a gym. The decision is a reminder that a property being within Use Class E does not necessarily override a restrictive condition on an earlier planning permission.
Inspector Elizabeth Pleasant decided the appeal on 29 October 2026 concerning Unit 16, Baublock, Blackburn Road, Simonstone, near Burnley. A planning permission from January 2021 restricted units on the business park to specified commercial activities, while the premises were operating as a 24-hour gym.
The gym enforcement appeal succeeded on the time allowed for compliance, increasing it from four to six months after the notice takes effect. It did not grant planning permission for the gym or remove the requirement to cease its use. That distinction matters to landlords and tenants who assume that the present breadth of Class E guarantees freedom to move between every activity within it.
A gym enforcement appeal over a 2021 condition
Ribble Valley Borough Council granted permission 3/2020/0990 on 11 January 2021 for four business units. Condition 4 limited them to activities within the former Class B1, now Class E(g), or storage and distribution within Class B8. The condition expressly excluded all other uses, including the remaining activities within Class E.
Indoor sports, recreation and fitness facilities fall within Class E(d). That grouping does not necessarily resolve the planning position of an individual building whose consent imposes a specific restriction. The condition at Simonstone referred to the Use Classes Order and permitted development legislation to make clear that its narrower limits should continue to apply.
The council’s planning application record 3/2024/0799 shows that an application for a retrospective change from Class E(g) offices to a Class E(d) gym, together with 24-hour opening, was refused on 14 February 2025. The later enforcement appeal was legally distinct from that refused application.
What the enforcement notice required
The council served an enforcement notice on 14 November 2025 alleging breach of condition 4 because Unit 16 was being used as a gym. Its requirement was straightforward: cease the gym use. The original period for compliance was four months after the notice took effect.
Group First Global Limited appealed under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The two grounds pursued were ground (f), challenging the extent of the steps required to remedy the breach, and ground (g), challenging the length of the compliance period.
The gym enforcement appeal therefore did not provide a fresh opportunity to argue every aspect of the gym’s planning merits. The Inspector had to decide whether the notice demanded more than was necessary to remedy the breach and whether the original period gave a reasonable opportunity to comply.
Why the attempt to soften the notice failed
The appellant argued that stopping the use altogether would be excessive. It pointed to local employment and the gym’s contribution to community health, said there was sufficient parking and no noise nuisance, and maintained that the operation caused no highway-safety harm.
Alternative measures were suggested, including restricted trading hours, online bookings and limiting the number of customers on site at any one time. Those proposals would have allowed a gym use to continue, but in a more controlled form. The difficulty was that this appeal did not include ground (a), which could have brought the planning merits before the Inspector.
Inspector Pleasant explained that the general planning merits could not be reconsidered through the ground (f) challenge, and concluded that there are no lesser steps available to me
that would achieve the statutory purpose of the notice. Ground (f) failed.
This is where the gym enforcement appeal has wider value. The argument that a business provides a worthwhile service is not the same as demonstrating that an enforcement notice requires legally excessive remedial steps. Appeal grounds should be selected with the factual and legal dispute clearly in mind.
Six months to comply, not twelve
The appellant also argued that four months was too short to find alternative premises, relocate a functioning gym and, if redundancy became unavoidable, provide time for affected staff to seek alternative employment. It proposed a twelve-month period.
The Inspector accepted that four months was relatively short for a business relocation. She also took account of the council’s concerns about highway and pedestrian safety and effects on neighbouring uses. Weighing those matters, she considered six months to be reasonable.
The gym enforcement appeal was consequently allowed on ground (g) alone. The Inspector substituted six months for four months but upheld the enforcement notice. The six months runs by reference to when the notice takes effect. It is not a fresh consent, and the decision should not be read as allowing the use indefinitely.
Inspector Pleasant determined the case on the written evidence without a site visit. The decision did not establish that every alleged impact of the gym was proven, nor did it adjudicate on a new planning proposal for a differently controlled gym. The operative requirement to stop the present use remains.
Why Class E flexibility needs a closer look
The broad Class E grouping is designed to allow movement between many commercial and service activities without a material change of use in ordinary circumstances. It is tempting to stop the enquiry there, particularly when a unit has previously been used for offices, light industrial activity or other commercial purposes.
However, a planning condition expressly limiting a unit to named uses cannot safely be ignored. The starting point should be the underlying decision notice and its conditions, followed by any permissions, certificates or approvals that may have varied that position. An estate agent’s description of a unit as flexible commercial space is not itself planning authorisation.
Our change of use guide explains when planning permission can be needed despite apparent use-class flexibility. For changes requiring a specific permitted development route, the Part 3 permitted changes of use guide explains how other statutory restrictions and conditions must be considered.
The gym enforcement appeal is also a practical reminder to check planning restrictions before signing a lease or paying for fit-out works. A business may be physically suitable for an activity while its permitted planning use is substantially narrower. A proposed compromise over hours or customer numbers may require the right planning application rather than a narrow enforcement challenge.
Decision and original sources
Inspector Elizabeth Pleasant issued the decision on 29 October 2026 under appeal APP/T2350/C/25/3376742, concerning Ribble Valley Borough Council and Unit 16 at Baublock, Simonstone Business Park. The Planning Inspectorate case record provides the official route to the decision. The Inspector’s short quotation above is from Planning Inspectorate material under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. In short, this gym enforcement appeal resulted in two extra months for compliance, not the right to carry on trading in breach of the planning condition.
0 Comments