Appeal 6003150

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from Class B8 (Storage or Distribution) to a mixed-use comprising Class B8 (warehousing) and Class E (d) (Indoor sport, recreation or fitness (not involving motorised vehicles or firearms or use as a swimming pool or skating rink) at [site address] , [site address] , Kempston, Bedford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/00236/COU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appellant has confirmed that they agreed to a change to the description of development from that originally stated on the planning application form. I have therefore used the description of development as shown on the appeal form and the Council’s Decision Notice.

As confirmed on the planning application form and at my site visit, the development has commenced. For clarity, I have based my decision on the submitted plans.

The appellant has submitted additional evidence with their appeal, which includes a sales invoice, the total sales for 2025, an updated parking survey and the class timetable for the gym. This additional evidence would not result in a development substantially different from that applied for. Given the nature of this evidence, it would not deprive those who were entitled to be consulted on the application of the opportunity to make representations that they may have wanted to make. Its acceptance does not give rise to procedural unfairness, and I have therefore considered it in my assessment.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the key employment site; • Whether it has been demonstrated that a sports facility is suitable, having regard to the location and need for the development; and, • The effect of the development on the availability of parking provision, the free-flow of traffic, highway safety and the operations of the key employment site.

[site address] are two large warehouse buildings. The development seeks a mixed-use, consisting of a storage and distribution warehouse and a gym. The appellant previously operated a wholesale combat sports equipment business from Unit 12 and has since expanded into Unit 11, where the ground floor is used for wholesale activities and the mezzanine level accommodates a martial arts gym.

The appeal site is in the [address] [name] which is a designated key employment site. Policy 70 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (the Local Plan) sets out that such sites contribute to the economic function of the borough and will be protected. The development or redevelopment of land and premises within these sites for purposes other than business, general industrial storage and distribution will only be supported where it meets the set criteria. Ancillary or complementary to the existing or proposed ‘B class’ activities of the employment area

Although the gym does not fall within the growth sectors referenced in the supporting text to Policy 70, the policy itself does not specify which non‐employment uses may be acceptable. While the Council has cited examples that may complement the employment area, Policy 70 provides no criteria for making this assessment. This therefore remains a matter of planning judgement.

The appellant has explained that whilst the gym provides 1-to-1 and group classes, it also serves as a showroom for the sports equipment that they sell, as well as a photography location for marketing and a demonstration area where the equipment can be used. At my site visit, I observed various types of sports equipment on display within the gym. This is a fairly unique circumstance where a gym is within a wholesale business premises, using and displaying the equipment on sale, which distinguishes the gym from more typical commercial and leisure gyms.

From the information before me, there is a direct functional link between the gym and the wholesale business, with gym users going on to purchase equipment and increasing sales. This demonstrates that the gym supports and strengthens the wholesale business. By contributing to an established employment use, the gym helps to reinforce the role and function of the employment area, supporting the economic strategy, which is the aim of Policy 70. Conditions could be imposed to prevent alternative uses operating from the site and to restrict the gym from expanding into other parts of the units.

The absence of changing and showering facilities does not negate the gym’s ability to complement the employment area. The early morning and evening sessions, as well as the 1-to-1 sessions during the day, provide opportunities for employees in the wider area to attend the gym. Moreover, there is nothing before me to indicate that Policy 70 treats a complementary use as something that must benefit large numbers of employees simultaneously.

Drawing all of the above together, I find that the development is complementary to the activities of the employment area and therefore satisfies part i. of Policy 70.

The appellant highlights that this is a large industrial estate, and the evidence presented indicates that only a small number of permissions have been granted for non‐B‐class uses. This point has not been disputed by the Council. On the basis of the information before me, I am therefore satisfied that, when considered cumulatively with other non‐B‐class uses, the development is proportionate in scale to the overall defined employment area and satisfies part ii. of Policy 70.

For the above reasons, taking into account the unique circumstances, I conclude that the development does not cause harm to the key employment site. Accordingly, it meets the aims of Policy 70 of the Local Plan, the purposes of which are set out above.

Policy 97 of the Local Plan concerns new sports and leisure facilities and sets out the criteria which must be met for planning permission to be granted. In terms of location, it is acknowledged that the site is within a designated key employment area. However, as explained above, it has been shown that the development complements the primary employment function of the area. As such, it has been demonstrated that the location is suitable for this sports facility.

The appellant’s evidence indicates a growing interest in this type of sports activity and a general rise in physical activity across Bedford. There are no comparable gyms offering this specialist activity near the appeal site, and the gym is already operating close to capacity in both membership and attendance. This demonstrates that there is a clear need for the facility, and the gym is effectively meeting that need.

For these reasons, I conclude that it has been demonstrated that a sports facility is suitable, having regard to the location and need for the development. Accordingly, the development complies with parts i. and v of Policy 97 of the Local Plan.

Given that the site is within [name] 2, based on the standards set out in the [name] for [name]: Design and [name], the development results in a requirement of 11 – 16 parking spaces. The appeal site benefits from 10 parking spaces. Although a shipping container is presently occupying some of these spaces, the submitted site plan clearly identifies the full extent of the parking provision. There is no evident reason why an appropriately worded planning condition could not be imposed to secure the availability of the parking spaces as shown on the site plan.

The appeal site has a shortfall of 1 – 6 parking spaces. There is, however, an overflow parking area nearby and unrestricted on‐street parking along [site address] . Although the Council’s photographs show [site address] to be heavily parked, they are not time‐specific. While uncontrolled parking has the potential to result in inconsiderate parking, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that such problems have arisen from the development.

The initial parking survey indicated weekday peak demand between 09:30 and 14:30, during which no more than 13 of 26 spaces were occupied. After 17:30, and at weekends, availability was significantly higher. A subsequent survey, undertaken with increased observation frequency while the gym was operating, produced similar results, with occupancy again not exceeding 13 spaces.

It is accepted that there will be a greater demand for parking spaces, however, in the absence of any comparable analysis, the evidence indicates that the parking shortfall can reasonably be accommodated on [site address] . While the appellant has no control over this parking, users of the development are permitted to park there where it is safe and lawful to do so, like any other members of the public.

Whilst this represents a snapshot, at my late-morning weekday site visit, I saw the off-street parking on [site address] was not excessive. While the gym is open during the day for one-to-one training, the group classes take place early in the morning, before 07:30, and in the evening from 17:30 onwards, which is when the highest number of visitors typically attend the site. Consequently, the parking demand associated with the development is generally outside peak hours.

Concerns about future changes to the hours of operation of nearby businesses are speculative and not supported by evidence. It would therefore be unreasonable to resist the development on this basis. A condition restricting group class hours would be enforceable, with any extension requiring planning permission. Any existing instances of illegal or inconsiderate parking are matters for the road owner and fall outside the scope of this appeal.

The evidence before me does not demonstrate that the development results in an unacceptable level of on‐street overspill parking that impedes the free flow of traffic. Nor does it indicate that users of the development are being forced to park in a manner that obstructs access to the surrounding warehouses or prejudices their operations. The site is accessible by public transport, and some gym attendees travel by bicycle. The appellant is willing to provide cycle storage, which could be secured by planning condition.

Drawing all of the above together, satisfactory evidence has been provided to demonstrate that adequate parking provision can be provided and does not lead to unacceptable additional demand for on-street parking that causes adverse harm to the free flow of traffic, highway safety or the operations of the key employment site. Accordingly, the development complies with Local Plan Policies part viii. of Policy 29, part i. of Policy 31, part iii. of Policy 70 and part iii. of Policy 97. These policies, amongst other things, require development to not have an unacceptable impact on the operation of the employment area and have no adverse effect on the highway.

The Council has supplied a list of conditions that it considers would be appropriate. I have considered these in light of the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions to improve relevance, precision and enforceability.

In the interests of clarity and precision it is necessary to impose a condition specifying the approved plans [1].

In the interests of parking provision, highway safety and the effective operations of the key employment site, conditions are necessary to require the parking area to be made available [2], that cycle parking is provided [3], that no goods, waste, or other materials are stored outside the building [4], and that opening hours, group class times and 1-to-1 training times are restricted [5].

Conditions [2] and [3] are imposed to ensure that the required details of the scheme are submitted, approved and implemented so as to make the development acceptable in planning terms. There is a strict timetable for compliance because permission is being granted retrospectively, and so it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the approval and implementation of these before the development takes place.

To safeguard the key employment site, it is necessary to remove permitted development rights so that the site can only be used for gym, general industrial, or storage and distribution purposes [6]. To prevent the expansion of a non-B class use in this employment area, it is necessary to restrict the gym to the first floor level in Unit 11 only [7].

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos A 60109 01 – Site/Location plan A 60109 03 – Floor plans as existing

Unless within 1 month of the date of this decision, the area shown on drawing no. A 60109 01 – Site/Location plan is made available for parking, the use of the site shall cease until such a time that the parking area is made available. The parking area shall thereafter be retained and shall not be used for any other purpose. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Unless within 1 month of the date of this decision, a scheme for cycle parking is submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within 1 month of the Local Planning Authority’s approval, the use of the site shall cease until such time as a scheme is approved and implemented. If no scheme in accordance with this condition is approved within 6 months of the date of this decision, the use of the site shall cease until such time as a scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority is implemented. Upon implementation of the approved details specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be maintained. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

No goods, waste or other materials shall be stored outside the building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The gym shall only be open 06:30 – 22:00 Mondays to Fridays, 08:00 – 17:00 Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays. Group classes shall only take place between 06:30 – 07:30 and 17:30 – 22:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 – 17:00 on Saturdays. Personal training sessions with no more than [address] between 08:00 – 17:30 Mondays to Fridays and 09:00 – 15:00 on Saturdays.

The development hereby permitted shall be used for general industrial (Use Class B2), storage and distribution (Use Class B8) and indoor sport, recreation and fitness (Use Class E(d)) and for no other purposes (including any other purpose in Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

The hereby approved indoor sport, recreation and fitness use shall be restricted solely to the first floor (mezzanine) level of Unit 11, and no other part of Unit 11 or any part of Unit 12 shall be used for this purpose. END OF SCHEDULE