Appeal 6004931

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address above has been taken from the application form with the name of the property used on the appeal form. The description of development was revised by the Council during determination of the planning application. The appellant has confirmed their agreement to the revised description of development. Accordingly, I have used the description of development provided in the decision notice in the banner heading above.

The appellant provided a [name] and [name] (CVMR) with their appeal. The procedural guide1 advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, as it is important that what is considered at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at application stage.

In this case, the report was submitted in response to a reason for refusal, and it seeks to narrow the areas of dispute. While the Council has reservations about accepting the CVMR, the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to respond to this evidence through the appeal process. As such, I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced in this regard and I have taken the CVMR into account in determining this appeal.

The main issue is whether it has been demonstrated that a commercial or community use of the site would not be viable. 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026.

The appeal site comprises a single storey detached building which the appellant indicates is under Class E. The building is currently vacant and is dilapidated.

Policy DEC3 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019 (LP) sets out the intention for the effective use of land and premises currently (or last) in employment use in the District. This includes securing premises in employment use in such use, unless it is demonstrated there is no reasonable prospect of its continued use for employment purposes, or it would cause serious harm to local amenities.

The approach to demonstrating if there is a reasonable prospect of continued employment use is set out in LP Policy DCO1. This policy sets out that proposals that involve the loss or diminution of sites of social or economic value, including those last in such use, must demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of a continued use, backed by evidence of a comprehensive and sustained marketing campaign and evidence that clearly demonstrates that the unit is not or is not capable of being financially viable, including alternative commercial or community facilities, where appropriate.

The appellant’s submission is not accompanied by details of a marketing campaign. While the CVMR explained that letting the building in its current conditions would be unlikely due to requirements of other legislation, the CVMR also stated that if the building were to be demolished and the site cleared, it would be possible to undertake marketing to potentially sell the site. Given that any such alternative opportunities have not been tested by marketing to ascertain the actual level of interest, or reasons why any interest did not progress, I cannot be reasonably certain that there has been no potential interested party, nor that the building’s prolonged vacancy is due to a lack of interest.

The Structural Survey found that the existing building is unsound and therefore should not be used for any commercial activities in its current state. The CVMR advised that refurbishment costs would be uneconomic and would create a viability gap. The Council has not contested the contents of the CVMR. Nevertheless, in the absence of a marketing exercise, there is little before me to suggest that other opportunities to secure the land for an employment or community use would not be possible, including through its comprehensive redevelopment.

The appellant asserts that a new light industrial unit within this predominantly residential area would harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents. However, alternative employment uses would not necessarily give rise to harm, particular since Class E commercial, business and service uses includes uses that, by definition, can be carried out in any residential area without causing detriment to the amenity of the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), at paragraph 128, supports the use of employment land in areas of high housing demand provided it would not undermine key economic sectors and would be compatible with other policies in the Framework.

There is limited evidence before me to suggest that the proposal would undermine any key economic sectors. However, the Framework at paragraph 85 sets out that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Paragraph 86 states that planning policies should set out a clear economic vision and strategy which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth. Taken together, [name] DCO1 and DEC3 are part of the Council’s economic strategy. Irrespective of the modest scale of the appeal building, the proposal would be contrary to these policies. Consequently, it would not be consistent with the Framework. As such, the provisions of paragraph 128 offer limited support to the proposed development.

Thus, it has not been demonstrated that a commercial or community use of the site would not be viable. The proposal would therefore fail to satisfy [name] DCO1 and DEC3, which seek to protect existing employment sites and premises.

The site lies within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires that regard be had to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. I am also conscious of my duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. The special qualities of this part of the HWNL include historic farmsteads and routeways set in a mosaic of fields interspersed by woodlands, hedges and dispersed settlements.

The surrounding area has a semi-rural and verdant appearance and feel but is not devoid of dwellings and associated domestic uses and paraphernalia. As such, the proposal would not harm the natural beauty of the HWNL, in which the appeal site lies within.

There are a few [name] listed buildings located near the site. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of these heritage assets.

4 and 5 [name] is a two-storey house dated early 19th century located opposite the site. Its significance derives, in part, from its external materials including its ground floor painted brick, weatherboard above and hipped slate roof. [name] also sits opposite the site. It is a two storey L-shaped building dated 18th century, and its significance derives in part from its windows, chimneys, and external materials including ground floor painted brick, with tile-hung above. Singehurst is situated to the east of the site. It is a two-storey building with attic dating the 17th century or earlier. Its significance derives, in part, from its special architectural features, including windows, dormer, and materials. The proposal, due to its sympathetic design, would preserve the setting of these listed buildings.

The appellant advises that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and that the figure is in the region of 3.04 years. This is not disputed by the Council. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The appeal scheme would be acceptable in relation to matters including its effect on the character and appearance of the area, living conditions of adjoining neighbours and highway safety. However, these are neutral factors that neither weigh for or against the development.

In terms of benefits, the proposed development would deliver two additional dwellings and would assist in meeting local need for housing. The proposal would make an effective use of land within the main built-up confines of Ticehurst, would re-use developed land and site is a small one so its development could be delivered quickly. There would be some economic benefits accrued from the construction process, as well as longer term expenditure in the local economy. The proposal would contribute to the vitality of the rural community. Owing to the small number of proposed dwellings these benefits taken together attract moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

Set against the above benefits the proposal would conflict with the economic strategy of the District. The Framework seeks to build a strong, competitive economy. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and [name] DCO1 and DEC3 should be given significant weight in this appeal.

Thus, the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.