Appeal 6007313

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/AP/2231 for the partial change of use of warehouse (B8 use class) to office (E use class), of the part of basement and part of ground floor being the [name] premises only, while the other existing basement and ground floor uses of the [address] part of the building remain unaffected. The alteration and adaptation of the goods access door on [name], including recessing the door in the facade and the introduction of a stepped access to the premises from the pavement at [site address] granted on 16 January 2026 by the Council of the London Borough of Southwark, is varied by deleting conditions 3 and 8.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have taken the site address from the Council’s decision notice as this matches the address used on the appellant’s evidence and more accurately describes the appeal site.

Interested parties have raised concerns in relation to the ownership certificate served with the planning application and the validity of the appeal. To rectify this matter, the appellant has served [name] and given notice to all known owners of the land to which the appeal relates during the course of this appeal. Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that this has avoided any procedural unfairness.

Interested parties also refer to alleged unauthorised uses of parts of the wider building which go beyond the scope of this appeal. However, it would be open to the Council to consider enforcement action under [name] of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, independently to, and irrespective, of the outcome of this appeal. As such, I have determined the appeal based on the plans before me and the description of development sought by the appellant.

The appeal site relates to the ground floor and basement level of the rear portion of a mid-terrace, three storey building, accessed off [name]. At first floor and above, the building is understood to be in residential use, and a wine bar operates from the front portion of the building, accessed off [address].

The Council granted planning permission for the change of use of the ground floor and basement level of the rear portion of the building from warehouse to office use, along with some external alterations, subject to several conditions.

The appellant has confirmed that this appeal relates to conditions 3 and 8 which require the submission, implementation and verification of a noise insulation scheme and a minimum airborne sound insulation and noise level to be provided between the ground and first floors. The Council considers these conditions to be necessary to prevent noise from the appeal site impacting the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The appellant disputes the necessity of these conditions due to the imposition of condition 5 which restricts the use of the appeal site to Class E(g)(i) (offices to carry out any operational or administrative functions). The appellant also contends that, in the event such conditions are deemed to be necessary, that the minimum airborne sound insulation level stipulated by the conditions is too stringent and exceeds the requirements of the Building Regulations Approved Document E1.

On this basis, the main issue in this appeal is whether conditions 3 and 8 are necessary and reasonable having regard to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise.

The appeal site relates to the ground floor and basement level of the part of the building accessed off [name]. During my site visit I observed that the surrounding area had the character of a busy, mixed use, urban environment with relatively high levels of activity that generated frequent levels of noise. In contrast to the busier thoroughfares of Borough High Street and [address], I observed a lower level of activity along [address] and [name]. However, these surrounding streets nevertheless contain a mix of uses and noise levels were still consistent with that of a dense urban environment with the associated hustle and bustle of pedestrian and vehicle noise. While my site visit can only represent a brief snapshot in time, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that what I saw was uncommon.

The Council’s concerns relate to the potential for transmission of internal noise to the residential units above the appeal premises, principally due to its age and construction. As these residential units are directly above and physically attached to the appeal premises where noise generated from the use of the ground floor and basement levels could transfer through the walls, joists and ceiling, I consider this to be a reasonable concern.

Amongst other things, Policies P56 and P66 of The Southwark Plan 2019-2036 (the Local Plan) seek to protect the amenity, health and quality of life of existing occupiers or users and ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable impact through noise. Policy P66 also states development must avoid significant adverse impacts and mitigate and manage any adverse impacts cause by noise.

The appeal site is understood to have previously operated as a warehouse. I have not been supplied with a copy of the original permission relating to this use, but interested parties contend a condition was attached requiring the implementation of a sound attenuation scheme to preserve the living conditions of the upper floor flats. Interested parties allege that this condition was not complied with and I have no substantive evidence before me to confirm either way. Nevertheless, this appeal relates to permission sought for the change of use to an office, and the Council has imposed a condition (condition 5) which would prohibit the premises from operating as any other use within Class E without express planning permission.

There is no dispute between the main parties that an office use is a relatively quiet use, and based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to take a different view on this matter. While the Council’s concerns focus on the historic construction of the building, no substantive justification has been provided to demonstrate why it considers the age and construction of the building may mean that internal noise transmission is more likely or why an internal sound insulation scheme would be necessary for an office use. Nor has the Council justified why a minimum airborne sound insulation level that exceeds the requirements of Building Regulations for 1 The Building Regulations 2010 [name] – Resistance to the passage of sound (as amended) residences formed by a material change of use and new builds has been stipulated and would need to be met for a use that it accepts would be relatively quiet.

I accept that in comparison to an empty unit, the use of the appeal site as an office would generate additional noise that could be perceptible to neighbouring occupiers. However, conditions have been imposed restricting the operating and servicing hours of the premises which would prevent noise in the early hours of the morning when residents are likely to have the greatest expectation for undisturbed sleep. While the operating hours extend to 11:00pm Monday to Saturday and 9:00pm on Sundays and bank holidays, it is unlikely that an office would regularly operate late into the evenings. However, even if it did, any noise generated is unlikely to cause any significant disturbance, particularly when compared to the lawful use of the building and existing background noise levels. Moreover, there is nothing before me to suggest that any level of internal noise transmission, at any time of the day, would be such that it would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity or a significant adverse impact on the health and quality of life of existing occupiers.

I note that similar conditions have been imposed and discharged on the wine bar within the wider building. However, an office use is materially different to a wine bar, and I have nothing before me to suggest that the office use operating within the appeal site, either alone or simultaneously with the wine bar, would result in a level of noise that would be excessive or disruptive to living conditions such that it would require noise attenuation. On this basis, the Council have not demonstrated that the conditions would be necessary in order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers from unacceptable levels of noise.

Furthermore, the conditions must also pass the test of being reasonable. Notwithstanding the concerns raised by interested parties, I have not been pointed to any policy requirement or detailed technical evidence to support the Council’s case that a scheme of sound insulation for an office use must exceed that required under [name] of the Building Regulations. There is therefore nothing before me to demonstrate that this requirement would be reasonable either.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that conditions 3 and 8 are not necessary or reasonable having regard to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise. Accordingly, their removal would not conflict with Policies 56 or 66 of the Local Plan insofar as they seek to protect the amenity, health and quality of life of existing occupiers and ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable impact through noise. Nor would it conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework where it seeks a high standard of amenity for existing users.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and that planning permission 25/AP/2231 should be varied by deleting conditions 3 and 8.