Education use appeal wins as vacant offices meet Sunderland exceptional circumstances test

A Sunderland education use appeal has succeeded after an Inspector found that long-term office vacancy, changing working patterns and the benefits of a college use amounted to the exceptional circumstances needed under local employment policy.

The education use appeal, reference 6006514, concerned Grayling Court at Doxford International, where UK Management College had retrospectively changed a purpose-built office block from Class E to Class F1 education use. Sunderland City Council refused permission because the site lies within a Primary Employment Area which Policy EG1 normally protects for employment uses.

Inspector David Cross allowed the appeal on 5th October 2026. Crucially, he did not say that vacant offices can simply move to education use. He treated the existence of exceptional circumstances as a separate planning judgement, then went on to test the proposal against Policy EG1’s detailed criteria.

Education use appeal turns on exceptional circumstances

Doxford International is identified as Primary Employment Area PEA11 in Sunderland’s Core Strategy and Development Plan. Policy EG1 safeguards Primary Employment Areas for B1, B2 and B8 employment uses, although former B1 uses now sit within Class E following the 2020 changes to the Use Classes Order.

The policy says that other uses may exceptionally be considered on their merits. If that gateway is crossed, the new use must then be compatible with the established character and function of the employment area, avoid prejudicing its day-to-day operation through matters such as parking and traffic, and avoid an unacceptable dilution of its employment function.

The appellant argued that compliance with those detailed criteria was itself enough to establish exceptional circumstances. The Inspector disagreed. He said the criteria were factors to apply only after the exceptional circumstances question had been answered.

Cross put the point clearly: “it is therefore a matter of planning judgement as to whether the particular circumstances of a proposal are exceptional”.

That distinction is the central lesson from the education use appeal. It prevents Policy EG1 becoming a simple checklist through which any non-employment use can pass. There first has to be something sufficiently unusual about the proposal and its circumstances to justify moving away from the normal safeguarding approach.

Vacant offices and weak demand changed the evidence

In the education use appeal, the appellant relied heavily on vacancy across Doxford International. Evidence before the Inspector identified extensive vacant office floorspace and an announced closure which would add to that supply.

The age of the council’s employment evidence also mattered in the education use appeal. Sunderland’s Employment Land Review dated from 2016, well before the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent growth in home and hybrid working. The Core Strategy and Development Plan was adopted in 2020, but the Inspector considered that it might not reflect the later shift in office demand.

Even the 2016 review recorded that vacant space at Doxford required prolonged marketing. The Inspector treated that as an indication that demand had not been particularly strong even before the pandemic. He then considered the more recent evidence about vacancies and the time the appeal building itself had remained empty.

Grayling Court had been vacant for a significant period and there was no convincing evidence that it was likely to return to its original office purpose. The council argued that the appellant had not adequately explored B2 industrial or B8 storage and distribution alternatives. Cross was not persuaded. The building was purpose-built as an office block and he found little to suggest it could readily be used for either of those purposes.

This was therefore more than a claim that one office was difficult to let. The education use appeal was supported by evidence about the building, wider vacancy levels, historic marketing difficulties and a material change in office working patterns.

College benefits carried substantial weight

The proposed use would bring a substantial empty building back into productive use. The council’s committee report recorded that UK Management College intended to expand its North East capacity, with a maximum of 175 people on campus, including 25 staff and 150 students.

The Inspector found benefits beyond simple occupation of the building. The college would contribute to the area’s skills base, generate a significant number of jobs on and off the site and bring staff and students whose spending could support nearby service businesses.

Those benefits were given substantial weight. Combined with the amount and duration of vacancy within the Primary Employment Area, they were enough for the Inspector to conclude that the exceptional circumstances required by Policy EG1(4) had been demonstrated.

Only then did he turn to the detailed policy criteria. The use was considered compatible with the established character and function of the business park. The council’s transport consultee had raised no objection and there was sufficient parking. Given the scale of Doxford International, the vacancy evidence and the employment generated by the college, the Inspector also found no unacceptable dilution of the area’s employment function.

Planning Geek’s guides to Use Class E and Use Class F1 explain the two use classes involved.

Revised NPPF reinforced the education use appeal

The appeal was also decided against the revised National Planning Policy Framework published on 29th September 2026. Policy S4 supports development within settlements unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects, but it specifically requires attention to land which has been allocated or safeguarded for particular uses.

Policy S4(2)(a)(i) allows for cases where there is no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward for the allocated use, or where evidence shows that safeguarding is no longer appropriate. Cross found that the appeal met Policy EG1’s exceptional circumstances test and that, for this proposal, the allocation was no longer appropriate. He also concluded that the vacancy evidence showed no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward for the allocated use.

The Inspector found no conflict with NPPF Policy E2 on business land and premises. He also considered Policy DM8, which says intentional unauthorised development should receive substantial weight when retrospective permission is being considered.

That did not reverse the outcome. The application was retrospective and the college was already operating in a limited way, but Cross concluded that refusing permission on DM8 grounds would be disproportionate once the proposal had been found to comply with the relevant development plan policy and deliver substantial benefits.

What the decision does, and does not, mean

The education use appeal is useful because it shows how an employment safeguarding policy can respond to changed market evidence without being treated as obsolete. The Inspector did not conclude that Primary Employment Area protection no longer mattered across Doxford International.

Nor did he establish a general rule that office vacancy automatically justifies Class F1 education use. The reasoning was specific to this building, the evidence about wider vacancies, the dated employment review, the limited prospect of renewed office occupation and the scale of the benefits produced by this particular college proposal.

For applicants, the practical point is to separate the arguments. First explain why the circumstances are genuinely exceptional. Then show how the alternative use satisfies each of the policy criteria. Finally, support any claim of weak employment demand with evidence that deals with the actual building and realistic alternative employment uses, not just office marketing in isolation.

For councils, the case is a reminder that adopted employment allocations still need to be applied to current evidence. A policy may remain sound while the market assumptions which supported a particular site at adoption have changed materially.

For practitioners, this education use appeal is a useful example of why the policy gateway, the detailed criteria and the final planning balance should not be collapsed into one test.

The official Planning Inspectorate record for appeal 6006514 confirms the decision. Planning Geek has also hosted the appeal decision PDF locally. Sunderland City Council’s committee report sets out the original refusal case. Planning Geek’s wider planning appeals guidance explains the appeal process.