Appeal 6004305

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from existing warehouse (Use Class B8) to provision of medical or health services (Use Class E(e)) and erection of cycle store at [site address] . The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/0766/FUL, dated 16 May 2025, subject to the conditions included in the Schedule at [name].

The appellant indicates that the original description of development has changed. Therefore, the above description reflects the amended description.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed change of use on the function of the designated employment area in which the appeal property is located.

The appeal property is a two storey industrial unit located on the south-western side of [address], which is a designated employment area as set out in Policy CS8 of the [name] (2013). The area includes single and two storey buildings in storage, industrial and commercial uses, including offices.

Policy CS10 of the [name] states that activities within designated employment areas will be limited to office, industrial, warehousing and other B-class uses. Policy SADM5 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) concerning employment areas, reiterates the provisions of Policies CS8 and CS10.

Changes to the Use Classes Order since these policies were adopted mean that uses in former Class B1, which are appropriate in designated employment areas, now fall within new Class E (commercial, business and service uses)1. However, the proposal for the building to be used for medical or health purposes, also within Class E, is not an appropriate use within the designated area, in accordance with Policy CS10.

The Council’s principal concerns are that the proposed use is inappropriate in this location due to the lack of support from Policy CS10; that an employment land needs assessment has not been provided, which is necessary to assess the suitability of the site for continuing use in accordance with Policy CS8; and that limited evidence has been provided regarding the marketing of the property.

In terms of quantitative demand for industrial floorspace, the Council refers to its draft Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (2024) (HELAA). This estimates the available floorspace at just under 62,000m 2, with the demand being just under 82,000m2. For offices, there is an estimated shortfall of just over 8,000m2. The HELAA also states that occupancy rates at [address] are still good overall.

In response to the lack of an employment land needs assessment, the appellant points to the [name] (2024), which covers a number of local authority areas, including Hertsmere. It assesses the current and future demand under several scenarios for office, industrial, and storage and distribution space in [name]. The appellant notes that the study finds that Hertsmere has sufficient employment land supply to meet identified needs under the preferred scenario; and demand for B8 floorspace is primarily related to large-scale facilities.

For offices, the study finds that despite the fall in the total supply of office space, most areas have experienced an increase in the availability rate since 2019. This has been driven by the fall in demand for office space over this period. Commercial agents also reported there was currently a surplus of office space in the main market areas.

For the purposes of this appeal I consider that reliance on the relatively recent economic study is a reasonable and proportionate approach to meeting Policy CS8’s requirement to provide an employment land needs assessment. However, given the apparent differences in the findings that the parties rely on to support their respective cases and the lack of a wider context and comparison in terms of methodology and approach to the technical studies, I do not place substantive weight on the quantitative evidence.

I do, however, recognise the broader, more qualitative findings of the economic study, that demand for B8 floorspace is primarily related to large-scale facilities and that there is a fall in demand for office space. The reference to commercial agents’ views in this regard is corroborated by the letter from the estate agent handling the marketing of the appeal property, plus a number of other vacant units in the [address] employment area. 1 The Town and Country Planning ([name]) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 amend the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 and came into force on 1 September 2020. 2

The estate agent states that wider market conditions continue to suppress demand and that, in this context, the current level of availability on [address] is notably high compared to historic norms. While there is no detailed information about the approach to marketing the appeal property, this does not undermine these findings. The Council contends that contact with the same estate agent in March this year indicates that a number of the vacant units are now under offer, although this appears not to be borne out by the subsequent letter from the agent, dated April 2026.

Taking these findings as a whole, while there is a policy conflict due to the proposal not being a use identified in Policy CS10, there is some evidence to suggest that demand for these uses is limited and there is no other harm associated with the proposed change of use. Therefore, based on the above findings, on balance I conclude that the proposed change of use would not be materially harmful to the function of the designated employment area. As such, any conflict with Policies CS8 and CS10 of the [name] and Policy SADM5 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan is outweighed by the considerations set out above, for the reasons given.

For the reasons given, the appeal should succeed.

Of the Council’s suggested conditions, I have imposed the standard time condition and, to ensure the proper implementation of the proposal, one requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

I agree that conditions are necessary with regard to managing refuse and noise levels, in the interests of amenity. Conditions requiring provision of cycle storage and submission and approval of a Travel Plan are necessary in the interests of sustainable travel.

Finally, I accept that the operational use of the appeal property should be controlled by condition to manage the impact on the highway network and parking demand. I note that the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PL-101A (site plan showing car parking), PL-102A (site plan showing car and cycle parking, and waste storage), PL-003A (ground floor layout) and PL-004A (first floor plan).

Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, a refuse collection strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, and the refuse storage area as indicated on the approved plans shall be provided and thereafter retained in its approved form at all times.

Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, the cycle storage facilities as shown on the approved plans shall be fully provided and made available for use. The cycle storage facilities shall be retained as such thereafter.

Noise from plant and equipment associated with the development shall be 10dB (LAeq) below the background noise level (LA90) at the nearest residential properties (5dB below the background noise level if evidence is provided which shows that no tonality or other character is present).

At least three months prior to the first occupation of the approved development a full Travel Plan for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and target contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied, subject to approved modifications agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority as part of the annual review.

The development herby permitted shall be used as a day surgery only. To ensure appropriate control of patient volumes and operational impacts, the following limitations shall apply: • At no time shall more than eight (8) patients be present on-site within the premises. • The total number of patients admitted per day shall not exceed ten (10), comprising up to six (6) patients in the [name] and up to four (4) patients in the Procedure Rooms. • Accurate records of patient arrival and departure times shall be maintained and made available to the Local Planning Authority upon request to monitor compliance. [End of Schedule] 4