Appeal 6003037

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has indicated that the description of the used on the Council’s decision notice was agreed following the submission of the planning application. I have therefore also used it in the banner heading.

The main issue whether the loss of employment premises would be justified.

Policy EC2 of the City of York Local Plan (‘CYLP’) states that where proposals involve the loss of land and/or buildings which are either identified, currently used or last used for employment uses, it is expected that developers will demonstrate that the existing land and or buildings are demonstrably not viable in terms of market attractiveness, business operations, condition and/or compatibility with adjacent uses, and the proposals would not lead to the loss of an employment site that is necessary to meet employment needs during the plan period.

The supporting text to the policy explains that it is expected that such evidence will be proportionate to the size of the site and include evidence of effective marketing for employment uses for a reasonable period of time, and in most cases not less than 18 months. It also states that where a case is being made that the site is no longer appropriate for employment use, that an objective assessment of the shortcomings shall be provided.

The appeal building is a large building with a rear car park, located within a predominantly residential area. A detailed history of the building is not before me, although it is possible that it was once a large residential property, however it is common ground between the main parties that its last use was for employment purposes, and that such a use has since ceased.

There appears to be no dispute between the parties that the proposal would not lead to the loss of an employment site that is necessary to meet employment needs during the plan period and no local plan allocations to this effect have been brought to my attention. I therefore have no reason to disagree that the site is not identified with the supply of employment sites necessary to meet the required level of supply.

I have, therefore, focused my consideration upon part i) of the CYLP Policy EC2, which comprises three main facets; whether the appeal property is not viable in terms of market attractiveness, business operations, condition and/or compatibility with adjacent uses.

Evidence was originally put before me in relation to purported marketing exercises that had been undertaken by a third party in relation to the appeal property. It is acknowledged by the appellant that there is some doubt over the veracity of this evidence, and it has since been withdrawn from consideration. The robustness of this particular evidence has not, therefore, formed part of my decision, and I have not had any further regard to it.

The appellant has also since clarified that the property was marketed through GFW:Property in January 2026 and that it has been marketed directly through Gumtree from March 2023, and I have no reason to doubt that this was the case.

CYLP Policy EC2 does not stipulate a time period for marketing, but the supporting text indicates that in most cases this would not be less than 18 months. There is nothing before me to indicate that a shorter marketing period would be appropriate in this case, and accordingly, I afford the apparent lack of interest generated by the January 2026 marketing exercise limited weight in terms of establishing that the appeal property is viewed as unviable by the market, given the short length of time for which the appeal property has been marketed by this means.

The Gumtree marketing exercise was of a more appropriate length, however the evidence before me in these respects is very limited and does not include details of the terms upon which the property was being marketed, or if there was any degree of interest despite no offers being received. I also, therefore, afford it limited weight.

The fact that the property may have been vacant since 2011 does not, alone, indicate that it is inherently unattractive to the market, as there is very little substantive evidence before me regarding how the property may have been marketed within this timeframe, if at all.

The appeal property is not located within a local centre or other location where employment uses may normally be expected. The area around the appeal site is residential in character. However, such sites may offer some advantages to prospective commercial occupiers where premises location is not a critical factor, and I have been presented with no substantive evidence to demonstrate that an employment land use would be wholly incompatible with surrounding residential properties. Therefore, this fact also does not, in itself, mean that the location of the appeal site would be inherently unattractive for all potential employment uses.

Overall, it has not been shown that the appeal property is not viable in terms of market attractiveness.

In terms of business operations and condition, the property at the time of my visit would benefit from renovation and redecoration due to the length of time that it has been empty, and it would possibly require some adaptation to become fully accessible and to align with modern working practices. However, there is no evidence before me, or that I saw for myself, that would indicate that its condition is such that it would prohibit its future use for employment purposes. It has been suggested that such refurbishment would not be economically or commercially feasible, however this claim has not been substantiated to any extent, and I therefore afford it limited weight.

I therefore also find that it has not been shown that the appeal site is not suitable for ongoing employment use in these respects, as well as the respects I have previously addressed.

Therefore, the loss of employment premises would not be justified in this case. The proposal would conflict with CYLP Policy EC2, the content of which I have set out above.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with CYLP Policy ES2. The policy broadly aligns with National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) paragraph 85 which sets out that planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt, and that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity.

While the appeal property may not be a specifically identified employment site for the purposes of the CYLP, it nevertheless remains capable of such use and forms part of the general supply of such sites. CYLP Policy EC2 is clearly intended to provide a degree of protection to all existing employment sites, rather than just those that are specifically identified within the supply. I therefore ascribe the harm that would result from the conflict significant weight, and I find that this harm is of such magnitude, that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as whole, despite there being no dispute in relation to other development plan policies.

Weighing against this harm is the boost to the supply of homes which would result from the proposal. The appellant has stated that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of suitable housing sites, and while this point has not been contested by the Council, nor has the appellant substantiated the claim that there is a chronic and acute need for more housing to any extent. However, in either scenario the provision of five additional homes would nevertheless represent a boost to the overall supply of housing as advocated at Framework paragraph 61, and this weighs in favour of the scheme.

The proposal would represent the reuse of previously developed land. While Framework paragraph 125 (c) offers substantial support to the use of brownfield land for homes and other identified needs, support this is qualified on the basis of sites being “suitable”. Framework footnote 49 clarifies that the expectation to make as much use as possible of previously developed land does not include where this would conflict with other policies in Framework. Framework paragraph 85 forms such a policy, and the proposal would conflict with it. As a result, the reuse of a previously developed site, while remaining a benefit of the proposal, is one to which I afford moderate weight in this instance.

Even if I were to agree that the proposal would not amount to harm in any other respects, these would be neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of the proposal.

Taking account of all of the above, even if I were to conclude that there is a shortfall in the five-year housing land supply on the scale suggested by the appellant, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

Therefore, there are no material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate that a decision should be made in this instance other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.