- Decision
- dismissed, 22 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: M Clowes
- Authority
- York (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6010035
- Application reference
- 25/01690/FUL
- Procedure
- hearing
- Development
- Conversion of Victoria Vaults public house and live-music venue into 3 townhouses (non-determination appeal)
- Homes
- 3
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HC6(1)(a), HC6(2), E2, S4(2)(a)(i), S4
- Development plan policies
- City of York Local Plan 2025 HW1, D3, EC2, D4, D5
- Main issues
- loss of community facility and cultural venue; loss of employment use; S4 balance
Summary
The companion appeal to PINS-6011055: converting the Victoria Vaults pub and music venue in York into three townhouses. It was dismissed for the same HC6 reasons. The inspector also found conflict with E2 (loss of an employment-generating use), and gave only moderate weight to a small housing gain where the council has a five-year supply. The S4 balance went against the scheme.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties were given the chance to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶6).
- HC6. Same findings as the café appeal (DL ¶11, 22, 33-34). The loss was not justified and "the proposal would also conflict with Policy HC6 of the Framework and Policy E2, which seeks to support economic growth by ensuring the availability of land and premises to meet the needs of businesses and employment-generating activities" (DL ¶46).
- Housing benefit. "there is agreement that the Council is currently able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply … Even taking the appellant's case at its highest, the contribution to housing supply would be modest. Consequently, I attach moderate positive weight to these benefits" (DL ¶62).
- S4. The same structure as the café appeal: unjustified loss under HC6 gives a substantial adverse effect, which substantially outweighs moderate benefits (DL ¶60-64).
- Costs (separate decision, refused). Non-determination delay did not amount to unreasonable behaviour where the council "had substantive planning reasons for continuing to consider the proposal" (Costs ¶6); commissioning an independent viability/marketing review after the statutory period was not unreasonable (Costs ¶7); a councillor's use of the call-in mechanism "does not of itself, indicate improper influence" (Costs ¶11).
Planning balance
S4 balance. Benefits: 2-3 homes by reuse of previously developed land in a sustainable location, together moderate. Heritage: neutral. Harm: unjustified loss of a community facility, cultural venue and employment use, substantial weight. The benefits were substantially outweighed.
What made the difference
As in PINS-6011055. In addition, the five-year supply meant the housing gain could not be given HO7's "substantial weight". Compare Churchill (6007705, not written here), where 4.38 years' supply gave substantial weight to two homes.
Transferable points
- Inside a settlement, a small housing scheme that unjustifiably removes an HC6 facility fails S4. Where the council has a five-year supply, the housing gain was given moderate rather than substantial weight (DL ¶62-64).
- The inspector read E2 as supporting the retention of premises used by employment-generating businesses, and found the loss of such a use to conflict with it (DL ¶37, 46).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC6(2) | pass | pub and cultural venue are both key community facilities (DL 22) | |
| HC6(1)(a) | fail | substantial | same marketing and viability failings as the café appeal; 12-month period evidential not determinative (DL 25-36, 64) |
| E2 | conflict | the inspector reads E2 as seeking land and premises for business needs; loss of an employment-generating use conflicts with E2 and local EC2 (DL 37, 46) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | council has a 5-year supply; net gain of 2-3 homes "modest"; moderate weight with the sustainable reuse (DL 62) |
| S4(2)(a)(i) | fail | substantial | unjustified loss of the community facility, cultural venue and employment use gives a substantial adverse effect (DL 46, 64) |
| HE6 | neutral | rear extension and conversion preserve the SAM, listed buildings and CA (DL 47-53, 63) |
Key facts
- Council agreed it can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply
- Net gain of 2 dwellings if the upstairs flat is already a separate unit, 3 on the appellant's case
- Relisted as an ACV on 11 Aug 2026; companion café appeal 6011055 heard at the same hearing
- Appellant's full costs application (delay, late independent review, alleged political interference, ACV inconsistency) refused (costs decision 22 Sep 2026)
Related decisions
Sources
- Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
- Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
- Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.