Appeal 6003698

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a change of use from B8 (Storage and Distribution) to Class E(d) [name], Recreation or Fitness at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/2278/2, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

Use of the property as outlined in red on the submitted Site Location Plan received on 31 October 2025, shall be used for indoor sport, recreation or fitness within Class E(d) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) and for no other purpose (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 or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification).

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Charnwood Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

I have amended the description of the development to remove the words ‘for the purposes of relocating [name]. The proposal does not include any external changes or changes to the buildings appearance. The applicant will lay a specialist dance flooring internally’, as these are superfluous and are not a description of development.

Since the Council made its decision, the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037 (LP) was adopted on the 19 January 2026. Consequently, policies within the Charnwood Local Plan 2004 and the Charnwood Local Plan ([name]) have been superseded. The Council’s reason for refusal cited the pertinent policies that were emerging at the time of the decision and both of the main parties have addressed those policies in detail within their appeal submissions. I have therefore determined the appeal before me with regard to the LP.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed change of use having regard to local planning policy which seeks to protect the loss of employment land.

The appeal site comprises a commercial unit located within the [name] which is designated on the [name] as an ‘existing employment area’. LP Policy E2 sets out that existing employment areas will be protected for employment uses. Where alternative non-employment uses are proposed, evidence must be provided to demonstrate the site or land has no reasonable prospect of being re-occupied or redeveloped for a new employment use, and that the alternative use would contribute to delivering the wider local plan objectives. This would include evidence of marketing and require consideration of a mixed-use development of the site, whereby the alternative use should be small-scale, complimentary and ancillary to the main employment use of the site.

The requirement for marketing evidence and consideration of a mixed use development of the site only arises if an employment use is to be replaced with a non-employment use, and not when one form of employment use is replaced by another.

Employment uses are not defined within the policy, however, the supporting text at paragraph 5.23 to Policy E2 states ‘employment uses are generally considered to fall within the B and [name] along with some sui generis employment uses; however we also recognise that there may be occasions when other employment generating commercial uses may be acceptable’. Policy Q17 of the Queniborough Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2028 (February 2021)(NP) has similar aims in that it seeks to safeguard [name] for employment development and indicates that the expansion of existing businesses, together with new employment development within the site will be supported. The supporting text to NP Policy Q17 provides little explanation as to what is, or is not, considered to be ‘employment development’ for the purposes of the NP.

The existing use of the appeal property falls within Use Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended), whilst the proposed dance school would operate within Class E(d) as indoor sport, recreation or fitness. The Council considers the proposal would result in the total loss of land for Class B8 use and it also points to the proposal creating work for 2 or 3 persons on a full or part time basis, which it considers to be a very low employment rate. However, the supporting text to LP Policy E2 expressly recognises that employment uses can include both Class B and Class E uses.

The Council argues that the intention of the wording is to mean that the majority (underlining my emphasis) of employment uses fall within these classes, not that all B and E uses are employment uses. However, that wording does not appear within the policy, and since policies must be interpreted by the decision maker in accordance with their language and context, I cannot imply any additional restriction or qualification that are not expressed within the policy itself. Neither the policy or its supporting text identifies circumstances in which a change of use from Class B to Class E, or vice versa, would be unacceptable, nor does it prescribe any minimum employment thresholds or rates against which proposals should be assessed. In my judgment, the use of the site for a Class E employment generating use cannot reasonably be regarded as conflicting with the objectives of Policy E2. The dance school would employ teaching staff, attract visiting members of the public to the area, in the form of students and their families, and make productive use of an existing commercial premises. The proposal would therefore continue to contribute to the economic function of the industrial estate. I therefore see no reason why marketing should have been provided, or consideration given to a mixed-use of the site, and I do not consider the absence of such evidence to result in the appeal scheme being in conflict with LP Policy E2.

The Council has drawn my attention to the appellant’s business plan which refers to a retail element selling dancewear, footwear and school branded clothing and suggests this retail use should be operated from within a town centre location. However, since any sales would be likely to be limited to the students and linked to the operation of the dance school I consider they would be small-scale, complimentary and ancillary to the main employment use of the site and would not undermine the role of Syston town centre as the nearest District Centre. Consequently, the ancillary sales element would not undermine the employment function of the site or materially conflict with the objectives of LP Policy E2 or QNP Policy Q17.

Drawing all of these matters together, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of employment land and would accord with the aims and objectives of LP Policy E2 and QNP Policy Q17 insofar as they seek to maintain employment generating uses with the industrial estate.

A draft list of conditions was provided by the Council. I have considered these against the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance and where necessary I have amended the wording for clarity.

In the interests of certainty, I have imposed the standard time commencement

To ensure the use of the appeal premises remains compatible with the local area, it is necessary to attach a condition restricting the use of the appeal premises to indoor sport and recreation within Use Class E(d) and limiting the use to the floorspace identified on the submitted plans. I have however, removed reference to ‘and shall be limited to the floorspace identified’ as it would impose an unnecessary limitation on the lawful use of the premises.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.