The appellants offered a range of design services including advertising, branding, copywriting, marketing, printing, video production and website development. It also offered a design service for bespoke pieces of furniture including the sale of screens, lighting and art works. Approximately 50 per cent of the floorspace would be used for the display of these items and for exhibiting examples of signage. The remaining area would be used as a studio, a conference/cinema showcase area and staff facilities.
In deciding a related appeal involving the claim that the use fell within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, an inspector agreed that the company operated a novel and innovative form of business which incorporated a number of different uses. The premises did have window display and some goods would be displayed for sale in the front portion of the unit. Overall, however, it did not fit easily within Class A1 and she determined that it was a sui generis use requiring permission.
In relation to the impact on the town’s vitality and viability a local plan policy sought to maintain 80 per cent of the units within a particular frontage or centre as a whole within retail use. The precise distribution of retail units within the frontage was disputed by the appellants and the council. She decided that the policy, dating back to 1994, should also be read in conjunction with national advice in PPS4 on town centres and in the light of emerging local policies which proposed to limit non-retail uses to 30 per cent of primary shopping areas. The 80 per cent limit, in her opinion, provided a useful rule-of-thumb guide to achieving vital and viable centres and since 85 per cent of the proposed window display would display goods for sale, it would not create an area of dead frontage. Consequently, it would not adversely impact upon the centre’s overall health and the appeal was allowed.
Inspector Jane Stiles; Hearing
