Employment Article 4 Directions - Making Consultation 2026

Object

Representation ID: 17350

Received: 16/09/2026

Respondent: Osborne House Group

Agent: Eden Planning

On behalf of Osborne House Group, we object to the proposed nonimmediate Article 4 Direction for Gadbrook Park, which would bring changes from Class E to Class C3 under planning control.

The Council has not justified withdrawing permitted development rights: its own evidence shows weaker office demand, high vacancy
and a need for flexibility to support reuse, investment and long-term viability.

Lack of Demand for Out-of-Centre Office Development
The Council’s Article 4 Supporting Evidence 2026 and Local Plan 2026 Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report identify lower occupancy, changing occupier needs and pressure to reuse offices. This accords with Osborne House Group’s experience that demand has shifted from older out-of-centre offices towards accessible, modern and flexible space.

High Vacancy Rates Across Gadbrook Park
Substantial vacancy at Gadbrook Park supports flexibility, not further protection. Removing permitted development rights will not create demand and may prolong vacancy by constraining viable reuse.

Need for Greater Flexibility
The Council’s evidence calls for innovative reuse of vacant offices, yet the Direction would remove a route to repurpose them and add risk, cost and delay. Recent approvals show that diversification is already supporting investment and occupation at Gadbrook Park.

Risk of Sterilising Development Opportunities
For long-vacant or obsolete buildings, permitted development rights can unlock productive reuse. Restricting them could sterilise sites, deter investment and weaken the park’s vitality.

Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with Policy DM10 of the NPPF
The evidence does not satisfy Policy DM10 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires Article 4 Directions to:
• be limited to situations where it is necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of the area;
• be based on robust evidence; and
• apply to the smallest area required to mitigate the evidenced harm.

The Council's evidence base does not demonstrate that the exercise of Class MA permitted development rights within Gadbrook Park has resulted, or is likely to result, in harm of a nature or scale that would justify the removal of a national permitted development right. Whilst concerns are raised regarding the potential loss of office floorspace, the evidence does not establish that such losses have undermined the function, vitality or economic performance of the employment area.

Indeed, the Council's own evidence identifies changing patterns of office occupation, increased flexibility in working practices and elevated levels of vacancy and underutilisation across parts of the commercial property market. These findings suggest a need for adaptability and diversification rather than additional restrictions on the ability of property owners and occupiers to respond to changing market conditions.

Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the extent of the proposed Direction represents the minimum area necessary to address any identified harm. The proposed blanket approach across Gadbrook Park captures a wide range of sites irrespective of their individual characteristics, occupancy levels or market performance. In the absence of clear evidence of specific and localised harm, the proposed geographical extent of the Direction appears disproportionate.

Accordingly, the Council has not demonstrated that the proposed Article 4 Direction satisfies the requirements of Policy DM10, and there is insufficient justification for the withdrawal of Class MA permitted development rights across Gadbrook Park.

Conclusion
The proposed Direction is neither adequately evidenced nor proportionate. It would constrain viable reuse, deter investment and hinder adaptation to market conditions. Osborne House Group therefore respectfully requests that Cheshire West and Chester Council does not confirm it.