Appeal 6003298

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues with regards to the proposal are whether or not there would be an adverse impact on the living conditions of future occupants by way of size of units, sense of enclosure and natural light exposure and whether or not the loss of a commercial unit in this location is justified.

The site is a former and vacant veterinary surgery with ancillary accommodation located close to the town centre of Harrogate. It lies within both a commercial and residential location and is positioned between [name] centre and a private residential dwelling. It has been extended to the rear and forms a linear building.

The building would be subdivided into three two-bedroom townhouses, each of which would have private external terraces on the second floor. The town houses would have their own individual main entrances and largely utilise existing external openings and roof lights.

With regards to [name] in particular, the ground floor main habitable space combines a kitchen/living/dining room. The large side window would be onto the covered courtyard and obscurely glazed. Therefore, the light through the obscure glazing would be limited. Furthermore, there would be no outlook from this window and therefore the occupants’ outlook would be taken from the front elevation onto the forecourt. This space would be dedicated to vehicular parking. Occupant’s outlook would be obstructed as a consequence and restricted light levels into this combined main space as a whole would adversely compromise the living conditions of the future occupants.

With regards to each of the town houses’ bedroom sizes, these are over 11.5m2 according to the appellant. Whilst the sizes may meet [name] that Harrogate Local Plan policy HS5 refers to, be that as it may, these spaces are constrained by the location of windows or rooflights, sloping eaves levels and the layout of the room in some cases with the non-functional passage space within the bedroom. These factors as a combination significantly reduces the usable space within the bedroom.

As some of the bedroom space is particularly restricted, storage would be located on another floor within the eaves of the roof. From the plans before me, whilst the size may be as large as 10sqm, some space was inaccessible and did not appear fit for purpose, or has very low-level accessibility. This would not be conducive to a good standard of living accommodation for future occupants.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, the proposal would not meet acceptable living standards or safeguard the living conditions of future occupants and would therefore not meet the amenity safeguarding aims of Policies HS5 and HP4 of the Harrogate Local Plan and the same objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework as well as the [name].

The site is currently a vacant veterinary practice with ancillary first floor accommodation and has been unoccupied since around 2021. Its layout would be required to be significantly altered by way of a completely new floorplan in order to facilitate the change of use into townhouses.

Policy EC1 of the Harrogate Local Plan seeks to protect employment land in the borough to ensure a range, together with employment opportunities, exists. Employment land has further been threatened by changes to the Use Classes Order by allowing certain changes to occur away from employment uses under permitted development rights. Therefore, the loss of employment sites requires robust justification.

In this circumstance, the loss of an employment provider requires justification by way of a viability and marketing strategy to be submitted by the appellant. The site should be advertised for a commercial purpose for a minimum of twelve months. At the time of my visit, there was no evidence of an advertising board displayed at the unit.

According to the appellant, the site has been marketed for around eleven months by an independent commercial real estate at a value of around £35,000 p/a which they consider to be a competitive price when compared to other commercial properties. Records of interest were retained by them and the feedback presented as evidence with the appeal. Although the building was advertised for around eleven months, the limited feedback following interest and viewings indicates that the premises requires ‘extensive refurbishment’ to make the space viable and it did not meet their prospective needs.

From the existing plans before me, I could see that the site has been internally configured to meet the requirements of the veterinary practice with front reception area and small rooms and a residential flat. Given the responses, the layout will almost certainly limit its appeal to prospective clients. The appellant highlights the change in working patterns and need for office space post COVID-19 pandemic. In order to realise the building’s potential, the existing internal layout most likely reduces the appeal of the building and there is no evidence provided from the appellant that there is the potential for them to make the premises more flexible to garner interest.

The Council highlights that the monthly rent is not realistic given the works involved to update the building to create a more flexible workspace, nor have negotiations on the price been explored. This is especially important as given the current economic climate where a combination of location, flexible space and realistic pricing strategy is necessary to attract genuine interest.

These options should be explored in more detail. This is made more important by the fact that I have concluded that residential accommodation as presented is not acceptable in this location.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would meet the expectations of Policy EC1 of the Harrogate local Plan that aims to protect employment land.

The site is located within the Harrogate Conservation Area, significant for its varied architectures, curved terraces, detached and semi-detached villas, commercial buildings, grand hotels and residential uses of a generally imposing aesthetic but some of more modest character, dating from the 18th and early 19th century. There is a cohesive aristocratic air to the CA with its fine architectural detailing and its predominant use of stone materials.

In terms of whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, I find that it would have a neutral effect on the CA. However, this is neutral in the overall scheme of things and neither weighs for or against the proposal.

I have considered all matters that have been raised and conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which lead me to determine the appeal otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.