Appeal 3346006

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted for change of use from [address] (Use Class Sui Generis) to Commercial (Use Class E (G. ii, iii), and/or Storage and Distribution (Use Class B8) with ancillary retail and office floorspace. The appellant considers that the conditions imposed as part of the application require extensive and costly renovations that they cannot afford. The appellant has not identified which conditions they are seeking to remove; however, from the evidence before me, it is clear that the conditions in dispute are those related to sustainability and climate change that require additional works to take place. These are conditions 6, 7 and 11.

The Council consider that these conditions are necessary to ensure the provision and availability of adequate cycle parking, ensure the development meets sustainability and climate change objectives and incorporates measures to minimise the effects of and can adapt to a changing climate.

The main issues therefore are: • whether condition 6 is reasonable and necessary to ensure the provision and availability of adequate cycle parking, and • whether conditions 7 and 11 are reasonable and necessary to ensure the development would meet sustainability and climate change policy objectives, and incorporates measures to minimise the effects of, and can adapt to a changing climate.

Policy DM23 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan [name] 2014 (LP) seeks to ensure that cycle parking is provided in order to encourage people to cycle regularly.

I note that the appellant considers that the proposed development would not constitute ‘new development’; however, the Policy DM23 is clear that all development should enhance the cycle network and providing spaces for parking cycles would encourage people to cycle regularly.

The cycle parking provision is required to be implemented before the building is first brought into use, which is a reasonable timescale and would allow future users of the development to have the option to cycle from the outset of its use.

I therefore conclude that condition 6 is reasonable and necessary to ensure the provision and availability of adequate cycle parking. Conditions 7 and 11

Policy BSC13 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy [name] 2011 (CS) seeks to ensure that development contributes to both mitigating and adapting to climate change, and to meeting targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Policies BSC14 and BSC15 provide further guidance including measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and that sustainable design and construction will be integral to new development in Bristol. Policy BSC14 also seeks the specific requirement that development will be expected to provide sufficient renewable energy generation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from residual energy use in the building by at least 20%.

The appellant submitted a sustainability statement1 as part of the application which outlined a range of measures in order to make the development energy efficient and reduce energy consumption. The appellant considers that the implementation of these measures would be costly and would therefore make the development unviable.

Policy BSC13 states that sustainability statements can be proportionate to the scale of the development proposed, and the Council consider that if the measures imposed would render the development unviable, then the viability statement will be required to be submitted. No viability statement was submitted as part of the application and there is nothing before me as part of this appeal.

The appellant has provided a project cost summary for the energy performance works but there is not enough information in order to establish whether the development proposed would be unviable as a result of completing these works.

I also note that the appellant has requested a more tailored and proportionate approach is taken; however, all I have before me is the measures outlined within the sustainability statement. There is no information before me to suggest which measures can be achieved, if any, or failing that whether any different measures could be undertaken at a lesser cost to achieve similar benefits. Even with the information on project costs this is not enough evidence to enable me to alter the requirements of these conditions.

The appellant considers that the proposed development would not constitute ‘new development’; however, while the proposal does not relate to a new building it would relate to new development through the change of use of the existing building. It is also clear that the Council’s sustainability and climate change Policies relate to all types of development, not just new buildings and this is supported by Paragraph 164 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives significant weight to the need to support energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements to existing buildings, including non-domestic.

I therefore conclude that conditions 7 and 11 are reasonable and necessary to meet sustainability and climate change policy objectives, and incorporates measures to minimise the effects of, and can adapt to a changing climate.

The Council make reference to Policy DM29; however, this Policy relates to the design of new buildings and as no new building is proposed as part of the appeal scheme before me this Policy does not appear to be directly relevant.

The appellant has referred to previous planning application in an attempt to justify the appeal proposal. I do not have the full details in respect of such example so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me. 1 MSUSTAINABILITY – [name] Po6 3 November 2023

However, in respect of the application that granted the auction house it would appear then the Council, in considering climate change and sustainability that the installation of measures would be unfeasible and raise viability issues as well as that the applicant was the tenant of the building. I have however not been provided with any specific details in relation to the previous application, including any evidence the Council may have seen in order to draw comparisons with the appeal scheme before me.

I acknowledge that the appellant is unable to find tenants for the building and is being charged high business rates; however, I am only in a position to consider the planning merits of the proposal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.