Appeal 6000323

The appeal is dismissed.

I am aware from the evidence submitted that the proposed use has commenced. I am also aware that the appeal site is subject to an enforcement notice which has been appealed (appeal ref: APP/N5090/C/25/3367495). That appeal is outstanding; however, the grounds of that appeal have no bearing on this decision.

Reference is made in the appellant’s submissions to an application for costs. However, it was subsequently clarified by the appellant that this relates only to the enforcement appeal. Accordingly, there is no costs application for me to consider in relation to this appeal.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is surplus office floorspace, with particular regard to the requirements of the development plan.

The appeal site comprises the [site address] of [site address] , a nine-storey building located in Edgeware Town Centre. I understand that the upper floors of the building are in office use.

The development plan relevant to the proposal is the London Plan 2021 (the LP) and the Barnet Local Plan 2025 (the BLP). LP Policy E1 sets out the London wide strategic approach to office development, which seeks to retain existing viable office floorspace while allowing surplus office capacity to be released to other uses. The supporting text for Policy E1 (paragraph 6.1.7.) sets out that the evidence required to demonstrate surplus office space should include assessments of demand and supply, and evidence of vacancy and marketing at market rates suitable for the type, use and size for at least 12 months.

BLP Policy ECY01 also seeks to retain existing office space. [name] criterion b) of the policy sets out the requirements for assessing proposals for alternative uses. Like the LP, this requires demonstration that the premises has been vacant for over 12 months and have no reasonable prospect of being occupied, following demonstrable active marketing using reasonable terms and conditions.

The appellant’s evidence includes letters from [name] (dated 13 January 2025 and 28 February 2025) and a [name] ([name], 30 May 2025). These documents state that the SPC were instructed in September 2019 to advertise the appeal premises and that it was marketed again in April 2022. It is reported that whilst there was interest in the property, there were no other offers, apart from the appellant. However, it is not clear from the submission how long the property was marketed for, the terms and conditions or whether it was advertised at suitable market rates, as required by the policies detailed above.

The appellant submits that the appeal property is small in size and represents a small percentage of both vacant floorspace and total office floorspace in the area. Whilst the Council does not dispute these points, the requirements of Policy ECY01 are not limited to a minimum floorspace threshold. Furthermore, the [name] does not represent an assessment of demand and supply as required by LP Policy E1.

Consideration is given to an alternative use of the appeal property as four small workspaces. It is stated that there would be little interest in such small workspaces, as likely occupiers would instead work from home or in cafes. It is also suggested that the office market in Edgware is depressed following the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there is little evidence before me to demonstrate either of these points. I also note that LP Policy ECY01 was adopted in 2025, several years after the pandemic. Consequently, on the basis of the information before me, I am not satisfied that sufficient justification has been made for setting aside the requirements of the development plan in this case.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the appeal site is surplus office floorspace. As such, the proposal would conflict with the aims of LP Policy E1 and BLP Policy ECY01, as set out above.

It is common ground between the main parties that the principle of a place of worship in the appeal site location is acceptable, and I appreciate that such a use may support the aims of other development plan policies that relate to town centres. Nevertheless, this consideration does not negate the requirements of the development plan to demonstrate that the office floorspace is surplus.

I am aware that an adjacent premises was granted planning permission for the change of use from office to a place of worship in 2012. However, this decision pre-dates the current adopted Development Plan. Therefore, this consideration does not alter my conclusions on the main issue of this appeal.

I understand that the [name] (UK) has been established in the Edgeware area since 2008 and is connected with the local community. It is suggested that there are no other properties within Class F1 use available for the appellant to use in the area. However, this point has not been further substantiated, and I do not find this consideration provides sufficient justification to depart from the requirements of the development plan.

I appreciate the proposal may not affect the upper floors of the building being used as offices and it may otherwise be acceptable in terms of its impacts on the character and appearance of the area, designated heritage assets and neighbouring amenities. Nevertheless, these are neutral points and so they do not outweigh the harm identified above.

Concerns regarding the manner in which the planning application was considered by the Council fall outside the scope of this decision.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.