Refused on loss of an employment site
Refusals for loss of employment land are usually decided on whether the site was properly marketed, for long enough, at an employment use price. Here is what the evidence file should contain and where these appeals are won and lost.
Most employment land loss appeals are decided on the marketing evidence, and most of them are lost on it. The council refuses because a local plan policy protects the site for employment use, the appellant produces a marketing report, and the inspector finds the marketing was for too short a period, at the wrong price, or aimed at the wrong market. Everything else in the appeal becomes academic.
If you are facing that refusal, the question to answer first is whether the marketing you did meets the policy you are up against. If it does not, redo it and resubmit rather than appealing on what you have.
The policy basis for resisting loss
Two layers apply. The National Planning Policy Framework supports a strong economy and asks authorities to plan for employment needs. It also says planning policies and decisions should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose, and that applications for alternative uses should be considered on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses.
That second half is the appellant's foothold. It does not mean an allocated site can be released on assertion. It means the absence of a reasonable prospect has to be demonstrated.
The local plan does the heavy lifting. Policies protecting employment land usually set out a sequence of tests: marketing for a stated period, evidence that the site is no longer suitable or viable for employment use, and sometimes a requirement to demonstrate that the loss will not create a shortfall against the authority's employment land supply. Read the policy word for word and answer each limb separately, because inspectors work through them in order.
Marketing evidence and the periods expected
Twelve months is the most common requirement in adopted policy. Eighteen and twenty-four months appear regularly, and some policies require marketing to continue during the application. Check what your policy says rather than assuming twelve.
The evidence that persuades is not a letter from an agent. It is the file:
- the marketing particulars themselves, showing how the site was presented and at what price
- the channels used, including the commercial property portals, direct approaches to local occupiers and any trade press
- photographic evidence of the board on site, with dates
- a log of enquiries, viewings and offers, with dates and outcomes
- correspondence showing why each interested party withdrew
- the price history, including any reductions and when they were made
Gaps in that file are where appeals fail. Marketing that ran for eleven months of an eighteen month requirement is a gap. Marketing that paused for six months in the middle is a gap. So is marketing that began after the application was submitted.
An inspector will also look at whether the marketing was real. A site marketed with no board, on one portal, at a price no occupier would pay, is not evidence that there is no demand. It is evidence that the site was not really offered.
Asking price and valuation basis
This is the point that decides more appeals than any other, and it is unforgiving.
The site must be marketed at a price reflecting its value in employment use, not a price reflecting hope value for residential. An owner who bought at residential value and markets at a figure that recovers it has, in effect, marketed the site at a price designed to fail. Inspectors say so.
Get a valuation on the existing use basis from a chartered valuer, market at or around it, and keep the reasoning. Where the price was reduced during the campaign, show the reductions and the dates, because a falling price with no offers is much stronger evidence than a static price with no offers.
Viability of refurbishment is a related question. Where the argument is that the building cannot economically be brought back into employment use, that needs a costed appraisal rather than an assertion, and a Viability Assessment prepared on a recognised basis carries far more weight than a builder's estimate. Councils usually expect a suitably qualified author for this work.
Site quality against the local portfolio
Marketing tells you what happened. Site quality tells the inspector why.
Set the site against the characteristics that determine whether a modern occupier can use it: eaves height, floor loading, column spacing, yard depth and turning for articulated vehicles, access geometry onto the public highway, service capacity, flood risk, and the proximity of residential neighbours who will object to a late night operation.
The council's own evidence base is your best source. Employment land reviews, commissioned to support the local plan, usually rate individual sites and sometimes identify those that are poor quality or constrained. Quoting the council's own assessment of your site back at it is effective, and an Employment Land Assessment prepared for the appeal should engage with that evidence directly rather than starting from scratch.
Where the scheme delivers economic benefit of a different kind, an Economic Impact Assessment quantifying construction employment and end use jobs gives the inspector something to weigh on the other side.
Housing land supply as the counterweight
Where the authority cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply, or where its most important policies are out of date, the balance shifts and the weight given to the employment protection policy falls with it. That is a real argument and it wins appeals.
Two cautions. Check the supply position as at the date of the appeal, not the date of refusal, because it changes and a plan adopted mid-appeal can reset it. And check how the current Framework frames the presumption, since the August 2026 edition restructured national policy around policy codes and the wording of the relevant test should be quoted from the current edition rather than from an older copy.
Even with the balance tilted, the employment argument does not disappear. An inspector who finds the site is still capable of employment use will still refuse.
Conditions and phasing as a compromise
A full loss is not the only outcome available. Options worth putting forward, ideally before the appeal rather than at it:
- Mixed use, retaining employment floorspace at ground floor with residential above.
- Re-provision of employment floorspace elsewhere on the same site or a site in the same ownership.
- Phasing, with the employment element built first and secured by condition.
- Flexible commercial floorspace within Class E, which widens the occupier pool considerably compared with a restrictive B2 or B8 condition.
- An employment and skills plan securing local recruitment during construction and in the end use.
Offering a compromise at appeal is weaker than offering it to the council. If the council refused an all-residential scheme and you now propose mixed use, you are arguably appealing a different scheme, and an inspector may decline to deal with it.
Where the appeal turns
In practice it comes down to whether the inspector accepts there is no realistic prospect of the site coming forward for employment use within the plan period. Marketing evidence is how that is proved, price is how marketing evidence is tested, and site quality is what makes the result credible.
A well-built appeal presents the three together in a Planning Statement that engages with each limb of the policy, and it accepts the weak points rather than hoping the inspector misses them. If you are still deciding between appealing and reapplying with a better evidence base, our comparison of a free go resubmission and an appeal sets out the trade-offs.
Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which supporting documents your case needs, then have them reviewed before they go to the Inspectorate.
PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.
Frequently asked questions
How long does a site have to be marketed before employment loss is accepted?
It depends on the adopted local plan policy. Twelve months is the most common requirement, with eighteen and twenty-four months appearing regularly, and some policies require marketing to continue during the application. Read the policy word for word, because inspectors work through each limb in order and a shortfall against the stated period is usually fatal.
At what price should the site be marketed?
At a price reflecting value in employment use, supported by a valuation from a chartered valuer. Marketing at a figure that reflects residential hope value, or that recovers what the owner paid on a residential basis, is treated by inspectors as marketing designed to fail. Show any reductions made during the campaign and the dates of them.
What should a marketing file contain?
The particulars, the channels used including portals and direct approaches, dated photographs of the board on site, a log of enquiries, viewings and offers with outcomes, correspondence explaining why interested parties withdrew, and the price history. A letter from an agent summarising the campaign is not sufficient on its own.
Does a housing land supply shortfall win the appeal?
It helps considerably, because the weight given to an employment protection policy falls where the authority's most important policies are out of date. It is not decisive. An inspector who concludes the site remains capable of employment use may still refuse. Check the supply position as at the date of the appeal, not the refusal.
Can I offer a mixed use compromise at the appeal?
You can put it forward, but it is far weaker than offering it to the council before refusal. If the council refused an all-residential scheme and the appeal proposes retained employment floorspace, the inspector may treat that as a different scheme and decline to determine it. Negotiate compromises during the application.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.