# Victoria Vaults, 47-49 Nunnery Lane, York (pub/music venue to café) - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Clowes - **Authority:** York (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6011055 - **Application reference:** 25/01793/FUL - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Change of use of ground floor from public house (sui generis) to café (Class E) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(a), HC6(1)(c), HC6(2), S4(2)(a)(i), S4 - **Development plan policies:** City of York Local Plan 2025 HW1, D3, D4, D5 - **Main issues:** loss of community facility, loss of cultural venue, viability and marketing, S4 balance - **Tags:** pub-loss, cultural-venue, hc6-marketing-12-months, community-facility, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-a-i, asset-of-community-value, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A proposal to turn the ground floor of the Victoria Vaults in York, a pub and grassroots live-music venue, into a café. It was dismissed after a hearing held jointly with a companion appeal for three houses (PINS-6010035). The inspector found that the premises were a community facility and a cultural venue under HC6. The viability and marketing evidence did not show there was no reasonable prospect of retaining the use. The unjustified loss was a "substantial adverse impact" under S4(2)(a)(i), and it substantially outweighed the moderate benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were given the chance to comment on the Framework published on 17 August 2026 (DL ¶6). - **Weight of the local policy.** HW1's "objectives … are therefore consistent with Policy HC6 of the revised Framework … Consequently, I afford substantial weight to Policy HW1" (DL ¶10). - **Pub and cultural venue both protected.** "Policy HC6 of the Framework expressly identifies both public houses and cultural venues as examples of key community facilities. The dual function of the appeal site therefore reinforces, rather than undermines" the case for protection (DL ¶21). The inspector rejected the council's argument that the premises stopped being a "public house" for HC6 purposes because they were also a cultural venue (DL ¶39). - **A café is not automatically a replacement.** "the mere fact that a commercial premises is open to the public does not necessarily mean that it should be regarded as a community facility" (DL ¶23). The Bay Horse and Murton Arms decisions were distinguished (DL ¶26-27). - **HC6 marketing is evidence, not a clock.** "Policy HC6 of the Framework treats marketing as evidence relevant as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of retention, rather than establishing a determinative test based solely upon the passage of a specified period of time" (DL ¶39). Because "in both policies, the marketing periods are evidential rather than determinative", it was unnecessary to decide whether HC6's 12 months displaces the plan's 2-year expectation (DL ¶40). The marketing was flawed: it partly reflected redevelopment value (DL ¶33) and excluded the upstairs accommodation (DL ¶34-35). Enquiries from hospitality and music operators showed continuing interest (DL ¶37). - **Viability.** The evidence showed that the last business failed, not that the use "could not reasonably be made viable"; the £250,000 refurbishment figure was unsupported (DL ¶31-32). - **S4 balance: FAIL.** "the proposal would give rise to the type of substantial adverse impact referred to in Policy S4(2)(a)(i) of the Framework. I therefore attach substantial weight to the adverse effects" (DL ¶63). "the substantial adverse impact of the proposal would substantially outweigh the moderate benefits" (DL ¶64). ## Planning balance The inspector ran S4 herself, even though the council's Framework comments focused on HC6 (DL ¶59). Benefits: a sustainable location, efficient reuse, and café jobs, together moderate weight (DL ¶61). Heritage: neutral (DL ¶62). Harm: unjustified loss of a community facility and cultural venue, substantial weight via S4(2)(a)(i) (DL ¶63). Result: substantially outweighed, so S4 does not support approval, and the section 38(6) plan conflict stands (DL ¶64-65). ## What made the difference The site's specific cultural role, as one of only two dedicated grassroots music venues in the city centre, meant HC6(1)(c) could not be met. The marketing was also contaminated: it pitched a redevelopment opportunity and excluded the flat. Whole-property marketing at an existing-use valuation, open-book viability, and a café with a real community function might have changed the result. ## Transferable points - HC6(2) lists pubs and cultural venues as key community facilities; a venue that is both gets reinforced protection (DL ¶21). - HC6's 12-month marketing period is "evidential rather than determinative". Marketing must be for the existing use, of the whole premises, at an existing-use value (DL ¶33-41). - Failure of HC6 is a "substantial adverse impact" under S4(2)(a)(i) that can on its own substantially outweigh moderate benefits inside a settlement (DL ¶63-64). - A café replaces a community facility only if there is evidence it would perform a community role beyond being open to the public (DL ¶23-27). - A local plan policy consistent with HC6 carries substantial weight even where its supporting text asks for longer marketing (DL ¶10, 38-40). ## Policy findings - **HC6(2): pass.** HC6 names both public houses and cultural venues as key community facilities; the venue's dual role "reinforces" protection (DL 21) - **HC6(1)(a): fail (substantial weight).** 12-month marketing is "evidential rather than determinative"; marketing mixed in redevelopment value and excluded the upstairs flat; no open-book viability; ongoing hospitality interest (DL 30-41, 63) - **HC6(1)(c): fail.** of c.40 York venues with live music, only The Crescent (300 capacity) is a comparable dedicated grassroots venue in the city centre (DL 17-19) - **HW1 (York LP): conflict (substantial weight).** substantial weight because it is consistent with HC6; its 2-year marketing expectation (supporting text) versus HC6's 12 months left unresolved as unnecessary (DL 10, 38-44) - **S4(2)(a)(i): fail (substantial weight).** unjustified loss under HC6 is "the type of substantial adverse impact referred to in Policy S4(2)(a)(i)" (DL 63) - **S4: fail.** moderate benefits (reuse, jobs, sustainable location) substantially outweighed (DL 59-64) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to the Grade I City Walls/Victoria Bar SAM, the Grade II Moat House or the Central Historic Core CA (DL 45-50, 62) ## Key facts - Pub and dedicated live-music venue (ticketed gigs 3 nights a week, stage, sound and lighting); upstairs flat now a holiday let - Relisted as an Asset of Community Value on 11 Aug 2026 after delisting in Nov 2025 - Supported by the Cultural Recovery Fund and council grassroots-venue grants - First marketing (Carter Towler) pitched it partly as a "redevelopment opportunity"; second (Barry Crux) marketed the ground floor only - Council's own consultant retracted at the hearing their view that the loss would not be a major cultural loss - Proposed café operator (Rockello) withdrew; no evidence of any community role for the café ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011055 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5a92c4dc-2c29-49c7-99b4-6d46d600cf23 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011055.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.