Appeal 6000509

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the proposed change of use from Commercial, Business and Service (Use Class E) to 8no. dwellings (Use Class C3) at [site address] , Donnington, Telford [postcode] in accordance with the application TWC/2025/0212.

The description of development in the heading above differs from that provided on the application form. However, following the change made by the Council, the description above has been used by the appellant in their appeal. I have therefore used the description provided above as detailed on the decision notice and used by the appellant as I regard this to be a more accurate description of the development.

An amended red line site boundary plan, which includes car parking spaces to the rear of the appeal building was submitted as part of the appellant’s final comments. This has been returned in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2009 ([name] 2009/452) (as amended) and the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England which identifies that no new evidence will be accepted at final comments stage. The plan has not therefore been taken into consideration in my assessment.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for new dwellinghouses on detached buildings in commercial or mixed use subject to limitations and conditions.

Class MA of the GPDO permits a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class E (commercial, business and service) to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses).

[name].1 of Class MA sets out a number of requirements. The Council considers that the development complies with the requirements set out in this paragraph. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree.

However, further to this, paragraph MA.2 sets out that development under Class MA is permitted subject to an application to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required in relation to the conditions set out in [name].2 (2). [name].2 (2)(a) relates to transport impacts of the development, particularly to ensure safe site access. The prior approval was refused on the basis that the proposal would not meet the requirement of this condition. I note that the Council considered in this case that the development complied with the other conditions set out in [name].2 (2) of Class MA. Based on the available information, I have no reason to reach a different finding.

Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO, with specific regard to the transport impacts of the development, particularly to ensure safe site access.

The appeal site is a two-storey building formerly used as offices. The building is located within the designated district centre of Donnington, a suburb of Telford. The parade comprises a variety of day to day uses including a supermarket, pharmacy, post office, and several takeaways. Residential accommodation is located above all the retail units except the adjacent supermarket. Car parking is available to the front of all the units, and the adjacent supermarket also has a car park to the rear. Only the car parking for the supermarket is subject to a time restriction, being for a maximum of one hour. Bus stops are in front of the adjacent retail parade and most nearby roads allow unrestricted car parking.

Residential parking standards are addressed within [name] of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 (TWLP). To comply with the Council’s development plan, the proposal would require the provision of eleven spaces. However, based on the Council’s census data for the area, car ownership levels are low and would equate to the proposed development requiring a reduced provision of five spaces. The previous use included twelve parking spaces at the rear of the building under a private agreement with the landowner.

[name] of the TWLP also identifies that the parking standards are a guide and should be flexibly applied depending on a range of factors. This accords with paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that parking policies should take into account the accessibility of the development, local car ownership levels, and the availability of access to public transport.

Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would remain unchanged with access into the flats being from The Parade. I note that no highway safety concerns have been raised regarding accessing the site by the Highway Authority. Therefore, based on access to the site being continued as existing and the proposed layout plans, the requirement for safe site access would be achieved and maintained.

With regards to parking provision, no parking spaces would be provided for the proposed dwellings within the car park to the rear. A local parking survey was undertaken to review availability of on-street parking spaces within a 200m radius of the site. Four hundred and twenty-two parking spaces were identified, with between 46 and 55 spaces free for use at peak evening times. The Council raise concerns regarding the 200m radius being too large and that residents are unlikely to park 200m away, times that the survey was conducted, and that only one day was assessed. However, given the sustainable location of the building and access to services and facilities, I am satisfied that the 200m radius is a reasonable distance for survey and that the times chosen and results provided, seem to be representative of the general parking availability within surrounding streets.

The parking survey has identified parking availability in the vicinity of the site that would easily accommodate the [name] requirement for eleven parking spaces, without significant displacement for neighbouring occupiers. In doing so, the survey also confirmed the availability of parking spaces for the anticipated requirement for 5 parking spaces.

Whilst the parking spaces identified within the parking survey, are not within the red line boundary or the control of the appellant, and may not be available long term, these are not requirements of paragraph MA.2 (2)(a) of the GPDO which only relates to transport impacts of the development.

Furthermore, the site is in a district centre with good access to services and facilities, where parking requirements could be suitably reduced or removed, as not all residents would have access to or own a vehicle. The site is also accessible by public transport, with bus stops nearby providing transport links into the centre of Telford and beyond for employment, retail, and leisure purposes.

Paragraph 116 of the Framework requires development to be refused on highway grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or where the residual cumulative impact on the road network would be severe. Based on the above, the proposed development would have a negligible effect on the local transport infrastructure and would provide safe site access.

The proposal would therefore meet the requirement of condition MA.2 (2)(a) of the GDPO and as such, would be permitted development under Class MA.

The Council’s officer report refers to 12 objections having been received from residents and businesses in relation to the application. Whilst no third-party representations have been made in relation to the appeal, I note that the objections relate to lack of bin storage and car parking provision. The Council’s Housing Officer raised issues relating to compliance with Building Regulations. Whilst car parking provision has been addressed above, concerns regarding bin storage and Building Regulations compliance do not fall within the requirements for an assessment of the proposed development under Class MA of the GPDO.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other aspects. The Council has not suggested any conditions, and I do not consider that any other than the standard conditions that apply to Class MA are necessary.

[name] (12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO identifies that development must be carried out in accordance with the details provided in the application. Consequently, a plans condition is unnecessary in this instance.

Development under Class MA is permitted subject to conditions at [name].2 (5) and (6) which include that the development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date; and that any building permitted to be used as a dwellinghouse by virtue of Class MA is to remain in use as a dwellinghouse within the meaning of Class C3 of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order and for no other purpose, except to the extent that the other purpose is ancillary to the use as a dwellinghouse.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.