Appeal 6007253

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the loss of employment floorspace is justified, in line with development plan policies.

The appeal site consists of the ground floor of part of a two storey, terraced building in the Monken Hadley Conservation Area. It is classified as being in High Barnet Town Centre, and is on a side street facing onto Hadley Green.

The proposed development would result in the loss of employment floorspace, through its change of use to residential.

Policy ECY01 of the Barnet Local Plan (the Local Plan) (2025) seeks to create a vibrant local economy through the retention, where possible, of existing use Class E floorspace in district town centres. It also sets out that any proposals for redevelopment of office uses must demonstrate that the site is no longer suitable and viable, that an alternative business use including affordable workspace has been considered, and that a suitable period of active marketing for at least 12 months has been undertaken.

No evidence has been presented to indicate that the site has been actively marketed for a suitable period of time, or that an alternative business use including affordable workspace has been considered. Correspondence from a local letting agent has been provided, suggesting there is no longer a market demand for this office space. However, this does not equate to the evidence required, by Policy ECY01, to demonstrate that the site is no longer suitable and viable as class E use floorspace.

The appellant considers that the appeal site’s location within a controlled parking zone restricts its suitability for office use. However, at my site visit I observed there is metered on-street parking nearby and the location is well served by public transport. There are also numerous businesses operating in the vicinity, indicating that such factors do not impact unduly on the viability of Class E uses in the area.

The appeal site is in the Monken Hadley Conservation Area, but this does not preclude the installation of appropriate signage for continued office use of the site. Although the site does not occupy a main high street position, it is adjacent to the high street, and has the benefit of a tranquil and pleasant location, facing the verdant Hadley Green. Neither of these factors provide the required justification for the change of use of the site to residential.

Whilst the character of [address] may be predominantly residential, I observed other use Class E premises in the neighbouring building. The appeal site may have originally been constructed as a residential property and may lend itself to residential use, but these factors do not constitute sufficient justification for the loss of employment floorspace in the Town Centre area.

The appellant contends that flexibility within use Class E would allow the appeal site to be used in other ways which may be harmful to the character of the area and neighbouring residential amenity. Such assertions do not, in themselves, justify the change of use of the appeal site to residential, without proper justification or evidence in line with development plan policies. It is also likely that potential impacts on residential amenity from alternative uses, within the Class E designation, would be controlled by other regulatory mechanisms.

For these reasons, I conclude that the loss of employment floorspace is not justified, in line with development plan policies, and its loss would result in harm to the vibrant local economy of the Borough. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to Policy ECY01 of the Local Plan, the aims of which are set out above.

Policy E6 of the London Plan (2021) is cited on the Decision Notice. It relates to [name] and its relevance to the appeal is not immediately evident. It has therefore not been determinative in this decision.

No objections were received in response to the application; however, this is a neutral matter which neither weighs in favour of, nor against, the proposal.

For the reasons given above and having regard to other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.