Appeal 6001146

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and other changes to the planning system. The consultation was accompanied by a [name]. Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and therefore carry limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party.

The main issue is whether the principle of the proposed development would be acceptable, having regard to the spatial strategy.

It is proposed to change the use of the existing warehouse from storage (Use Class B2/B8) into a padel tennis court facility with café (Use Class E(d)). This change between use classes would be a material change of use, and it would fall within the definition of ‘development’1. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Policy CS2 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review 2022 (the Local Plan) sets out the approach to the location and nature of development. It states that the regeneration and sustainable growth of Ipswich will be achieved by, amongst other things, focusing new leisure development into Ipswich Town Centre. 1 Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

The appeal site is outside the town centre boundary. It is recognised that a sports facility of this size would need to be contained within a large building. However, the appellant's assertions that their specific requirements would not be possible in a town centre are not supported by any robust evidence, such as a sequential test, demonstrating that there are no suitable, available or viable sites within the town centre. There is also nothing substantive before me to indicate that it would be unreasonable to consider the proposed development as a leisure development. I can therefore only conclude that the proposed development would conflict with Policy CS2 of the Local Plan and would cause harm to the regeneration and sustainable growth of Ipswich.

Policy DM33 of the Local Plan seeks to protect employment land. It sets out that employment uses are defined as use classes E(g), B2 and B8. In line with parts c) and e) of this policy, outside of defined [name], the conversion, change of use or redevelopment of sites and premises in employment use to non-employment uses will only be permitted where: there is no reasonable prospect of the site being re-used for employment purposes over the plan period; and the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses and is an appropriate use for the site.

Even if the existing use did have a limited number of staff, it does not necessarily follow that every other compatible employment use would. The proposed development would generate seven full and part-time jobs, but the use itself would not fall within the definition of employment uses as set out in Policy DM33. As such, it would be classed as a non-employment use and would therefore need to demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being re-used for employment purposes. This requires evidence that the site has been marketed actively for a continuous period of at least 12 months from the date of the first advertisement for employment use, as set out in Appendix 5 of Policy DM33.

No marketing evidence has been presented to substantiate the appellant’s point that the site owners have been looking for tenants. In the absence of such evidence, it has not been demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being re-used for employment purposes. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the proposed development would be an appropriate use of the appeal site. The proposed development would therefore result in the loss of an employment use and would conflict with Policy DM33.

The appeal site is within one of the opportunity sites identified within Policy SP29 of the Site Allocations and Policies (Incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document Review 2022 (the [name]) to contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront and Town Centre. It promotes the site as a potential mix of residential and employment (Use Class E(g)), community, arts, open space or tourism. There would be some conflict with Policy SP29 as the proposed use would fall outside of the policy’s preferred range of uses. However, it is acknowledged that a B2 or B8 use could lawfully operate from the building without planning permission, which would also conflict with the aspirations of Policy SP29. Nevertheless, even if I were to accept the appellant’s argument that changing the use of the building would not prejudice the Councils long term aspirations for the site set out in Policy SP29, this would not overcome the conflict I have identified with Policies CS2 and DM33 of the Local Plan.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the principle of the proposed development would not be acceptable, having regard to the spatial strategy. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policies CS2 and DM33 of the Local Plan and Policy SP29 of the [name], the purposes of which have been set out above.

The appellant has expressed their dissatisfaction with how the Council handled the planning application. However, this is not a matter for me to address in determining this appeal. I have reached my findings on the main issue based on the planning merits of the proposed development.

The proposed development would not be in a town centre location, it would result in the loss of an employment use, and it would be contrary to the Council’s long-term policy aspirations for the redevelopment of the site. As such, the proposed development conflicts with Policies CS2 and DM33 of the Local Plan and Policy SP29 of the [name]. It therefore conflicts with the development plan as a whole. I apportion significant weight to this conflict and the associated harm.

The provision of padel tennis courts would offer benefits in terms of increased physical and social activity for the community. It would therefore accord with paragraph 103 of the Framework, which states that opportunities for sport and physical activity are important for the health and well-being of communities.

The proposed development would provide some modest job opportunities. The appellant asserts that this is one of the fastest growing sports across Europe, and Ipswich has an undersupply of padel tennis courts. However, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate this or that the appeal scheme is the only means by which this demand could be met. Although it is also stated that the proposed development would bring sporting activity to thousands each year, this is not supported by any specific figures. Consequently, in the absence of more detailed information, these are moderate benefits in favour of the proposed development.

As no specific examples have been provided of where similar developments have established in former warehouses, this consideration can only be given very limited weight.

The Council considered the proposed development to be acceptable on highway grounds. Compliance with local planning policies on these matters would be required in any case. This is therefore a neutral matter and neither weighs in favour nor against the appeal scheme.

Taken together, the moderate benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the conflict with the development plan outlined above and the harm associated.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR