A sequential test failure has helped defeat plans to turn a terraced house into commercial premises with a flat above in Smethwick. Planning Inspector A O’Neill dismissed the appeal on 5 November 2026, finding that the applicant had not properly considered more central premises for the proposed business use.
The application concerned Shireland Road, close to Cape Hill in Sandwell. It sought a ground-floor unit within Use Class E and a two-bedroom apartment occupying the upper floors. The proposal was refused by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council under application DC/26/71582, then examined at appeal under reference 6013164.
The sequential test was not the only problem. The Inspector also found the proposed commercial activity could harm neighbouring residents through noise and disturbance, without an adequate acoustic assessment. By contrast, the accommodation within the proposed flat was judged acceptable, despite the council’s concerns about minimum internal space standards.
Why the sequential test mattered
The appellant said the commercial space would be occupied by an office or professional service, but the application did not restrict the premises to either use. The Inspector therefore considered the wider range of activities available under Use Class E, including uses treated by national policy as main town centre uses. That wider permission mattered when deciding whether a sequential test was necessary.
Policy CEN7 of the Black Country Core Strategy seeks to concentrate development in centres. The Inspector also applied policy TC3 of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, which requires a sequential test for relevant main town centre uses outside an existing centre. The applicant needed to show that suitable and available premises in a preferable location had been considered.
The appeal site fell within the boundary of Cape Hill Town Centre, but was around 60 metres beyond its defined Primary Shopping Area. Applying the policy definitions to the proposed use, the Inspector treated it as an edge-of-centre location. Being near shops and within a broader town-centre boundary did not, on these facts, remove the sequential test requirement.
The appellant explained that the building was already in their ownership and would offer a cheaper route to starting a business. That might make commercial sense, but the Inspector distinguished an owner’s preferred property from evidence that more central alternatives were unsuitable or unavailable. As the decision put it, land ownership does not provide such a justification
.
Missing alternatives and the neighbouring house
No convincing comparison with sequentially preferable premises had been provided. The decision makes clear that the sequential test is about the availability and suitability of alternative sites, rather than the applicant’s desire to use a particular property. Without the necessary analysis, compliance with the development plan and national policy had not been shown.
The commercial conversion would also change the balance of uses along a short terrace. Shops stood at either end of the residential group, with further businesses towards Cape Hill Primary Shopping Area. The proposal would leave one neighbouring home between two commercial premises, increasing its potential exposure to activity, arrivals, departures and general noise.
The Inspector accepted that operating hours might reasonably be restricted by condition. However, there was no acoustic assessment establishing the existing sound environment or the standards any insulation should achieve. Although the appellant was willing to accept an acoustic condition, the evidence was insufficient to draft one precisely and demonstrate that neighbours would be adequately protected.
There is a wider lesson here beyond the sequential test. Conditions are not a substitute for technical evidence where the decision-maker cannot identify what mitigation is necessary or whether it will work. The Inspector concluded that the commercial activity would harm residential amenity and conflict with relevant Sandwell policies.
Why the proposed flat was not the problem
The council had also criticised the size of the new two-bedroom apartment. Its proposed floor area was 66.4 square metres, below the nationally described space standard referred to by the council, but above the 65 square metres suggested for a two-bedroom flat by Sandwell’s 2014 residential design supplementary planning document.
That distinction changed the assessment. The Inspector found no adopted development plan policy requiring the national minimum space standard. A similar requirement was said to appear in an emerging plan, but insufficient evidence had been supplied about the plan’s progress and any unresolved objections. The emerging provision was consequently given limited weight.
On inspection of the plans, the rooms were considered functional, with reasonable dimensions and windows providing outlook, daylight and sunlight. The Inspector did not accept inadequate internal space as a reason to refuse the appeal. The decision illustrates why an authority cannot assume that a national technical standard is determinative without establishing the planning policy basis for applying it.
The appellant therefore succeeded on the accommodation issue, but that did not outweigh the lack of a sequential test and the unresolved neighbour impacts. The new commercial floorspace would offer a modest economic benefit, yet the Inspector concluded that the adverse effects substantially outweighed it under the August 2026 Framework’s decision-making policies.
What applicants should take from the decision
For an applicant proposing new business floorspace, it is worth settling the intended Use Class E activity before preparing the planning case. If permission would allow several types of main town centre use, the authority may assess the location against that broader permission. A detailed guide to the town centre sequential test explains when the exercise is required and how to approach alternative sites.
The sequential test should be prepared early enough to influence the site choice, not simply used to justify a decision already made. The Smethwick appeal shows that ownership, start-up cost savings and proximity to a shopping area may not establish that an edge-of-centre location is acceptable. Where another home could be exposed to commercial noise, an acoustic report can also be critical.
This decision does not mean every small business must carry out a sequential test or that all Class E premises are unacceptable next to housing. The precise development plan, location, permitted range of uses and likely effects all matter. In this case, the unaddressed location question and lack of acoustic evidence were decisive.
The Planning Inspectorate appeal record relates to decision 6013164, issued by Inspector A O’Neill on 5 November 2026. Earlier council objections were reported in June before the appeal was determined. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments