Artist studio use at a former Islington church has been certified as lawful within Use Class E. The Inspector accepted evidence of more than ten years of continuous studio use and concluded that making artwork could fall within the industrial-process limb of the class.
The decision is useful on two separate questions: what artists actually do within a building, and how historic evidence can establish a lawful use even where the paperwork is incomplete.
The artist studio appeal at St Saviour’s
Peter Willows allowed appeal APP/V5570/X/25/3360983 on 16th September 2026, following a site visit on 18th August 2026. The site is the Church Of The Most Holy Saviour, Aberdeen Park, Islington, London N5 2AR.
London Diocesan Fund had applied for a certificate of lawful existing use under section 191(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Application P2024/2706/COL was dated 5th September 2024 and refused on 31st October 2024.
The application described the use as “Artist Studio (Research and Development E(g)ii)) in the entirety of the building”. The Inspector preferred the appeal form’s broader description, removing the unnecessary subcategory and whole-building wording. The supporting statement confirmed that the application covered the building and grounds.
Making art can be an industrial process
The applicant relied on Class E(g)(ii), which covers research and development of products or processes. The Inspector considered that an uncomfortable description of making art. He instead examined Class E(g)(iii), which covers qualifying industrial processes.
Article 2 of the Use Classes Order defines an industrial process to include making an article or part of an article in the course of a trade or business. The definition is wider than heavy manufacturing. The Inspector considered that creating items of art would, in most cases, fit naturally within it.
Crucially, he was satisfied that this building had been used primarily to make artwork. Its annual open day, when works were displayed, reflected that primary studio activity rather than establishing a different use.
The Class E(g) amenity qualification still matters. The use must be capable of being carried on in any residential area without detriment from noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit.
This does not classify every artist studio automatically. Premises primarily used for teaching, displaying art, retailing or a materially different production process needs its own assessment. A gallery displaying artwork otherwise than for sale or hire, for example, has a separate entry in Class F1(b). The activity and its character matter more than the label on the door.
What proved the continuous studio use?
Two statutory declarations said that the Florence Trust occupied the church from 1990 to 2022. Sarah Hamilton, an asset manager at the Diocese of London, described a commercial artist studio operation. Steven Allbutt, the Trust’s programme director, described support and studio space for twelve artists each year. He also had direct experience as a participating artist in 2008/09.
The Inspector did not assume that the Trust’s entire occupation proved studio use. Its charitable arts-and-education objectives were consistent with the claim, but did not establish precisely what happened inside the building.
Other evidence included a 2009/10 studio-residency advertisement, interior and open-day photographs, exhibition information and a 2021 planning appraisal. That appraisal described studio areas for twelve artists, separated by temporary timber and plasterboard partitions, with public access limited to the annual exhibition.
Together, the material made it probable that active artist studio use continued at least from 2008/09 until 2021, and possibly longer. Class E itself was introduced in 2020; the historic evidence established the underlying activity, rather than suggesting that today’s class label existed throughout that period.
There were gaps. The photographs were not date-stamped, artist details were limited and there was no detailed account of the processes undertaken. Nevertheless, the evidence consistently supported studio use and nothing undermined the statutory declarations, which received significant weight.
The practical distinction is between a gap in documents and an actual interruption in use. Missing paperwork can weaken a case, but it does not automatically prove that the activity stopped. The applicant still has to establish a sufficiently precise and unambiguous case on the balance of probabilities, as the Government’s LDC guidance explains.
The qualifying ten years can be historic
Paragraph 10 of the decision expressly confirms that the qualifying continuous ten-year period need not be the ten years immediately before the application. The Inspector cited R (Ocado Retail Ltd) v London Borough of Islington [2021] EWHC 1509 (Admin).
The two stages must remain separate. First, the relevant continuous period must establish immunity under section 171B. Then the accrued lawful right must still exist at the application date. Mere later inactivity does not automatically erase it, although abandonment or another legally significant event can.
Here, the Inspector found no subsequent event affecting lawfulness before the application. A licence dated 14th March 2022 permitting temporary studio use and general caretaking was consistent with the claim that studio use continued after the Florence Trust lease ended. No enforcement notice was in force.
What the certificate actually confirms
The certificate’s First Schedule reads exactly: “Use as Artists Studio Class E”. Its reason identifies an industrial process compatible with E(g)(iii). It certifies lawfulness on 5th September 2024, the application date, for the land identified in its schedule and attached plan.
This was a lawful development certificate appeal, determined on evidence and law. The Inspector did not grant a new planning permission on the merits or decide that every creative business falls within Class E.
For owners and advisers, the useful lesson is to describe the actual activity, show how witnesses know its history and identify the period relied upon. A use-class label and an old lease are starting points; the evidence must explain what actually happened.
Read the complete appeal decision, certificate and plan. The decision was checked against the original Planning Inspectorate document. Short quotations from the decision are Planning Inspectorate material under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Report published: 18th September 2026
0 Comments