Appeal 6000560

The appeal is dismissed.

The address in the application form refers to [address]. The Council’s decision notice subsequently references [address]. The appellant however outlines in their appeal statement that the appeal site address is [site address] , and that this is clearly shown on the location plan. The Council, and any interested parties, have had the opportunity to comment on this through the appeal process. I have therefore used this amended address in the heading above and proceeded on this basis.

Class MA of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) permits the change of use of commercial, business and service uses falling within Class E to a use falling within Class C3 subject to a number of limitations. This right is subject to limitations which are specified at paragraph MA.1, and conditions which are set out at paragraph MA.2. The conditions establish a requirement for developers to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval will be required in relation to a number of specified prior approval matters.

Having regard to MA.1(1)(b), development is not permitted by Class MA unless the use of the building fell within one or more of the classes specified, for a continuous period of at least 2 years prior to the date of the application for prior approval. [name](3) of the GPDO also states that the local planning authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority, the proposed development does not comply with, or the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with, any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified as being applicable to the development in question.

The main issue is therefore whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO.

The appeal site relates to a two-storey building to the rear of properties along [site address] . The building forms an ‘L shape’ and is split into four separate workshop areas. The site is located within the town centre boundary of Beckenham District Centre and is located within the Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area.

A planning permission in 1987 (Ref: 87/3218) at [address] granted permission for use as a fabric and upholstery workroom. A subsequent planning permission was granted at [address] in 1990 (Ref: 90/1726) for use of the premises as a soft furnishing and upholstery workshop. Neither historic permission, as described above, referenced No.3. The site plan for the 1990 permission does not clearly indicate which part of the building the permission related to. However, the planning report for the 1990 permission outlines how the application seeks to extend the existing business into the adjacent buildings. It describes a total of [address] yards for industrial use and [address] yards for storage, referencing activities such as the manufacture of curtains. It also includes a number of photos, which appear to show No.3. Based on the information before me, it would therefore appear that the 1990 permission included the appeal site. Nonetheless, this does not confirm that the appeal property has been in the relevant use for the required period.

A lease agreement for [address] has been submitted, covering the period from 1st April 2017 to 31st March 2027. The use allowed under the agreement is as a workshop and office within Class B1 (now Class E). However, this alone does not confirm the property has been in the relevant use for a period of at least two years prior to the date of the application for prior approval.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me, there is insufficient information that supports the building having been used for a Class E purpose for the required period prior to the date of the application.

The Council’s refusal reason references how the permitted use of the premises is restricted to use as a soft furnishing and upholstery workshop and for no other purpose under planning permission 90/1726/FUL, and the scheme therefore does not comply with [name](3) of the GPDO. There is various evidence submitted by the main parties in relation to planning conditions attached to historic planning permissions.

[name](3) refers to a development’s compliance with any conditions, this is in relation to the conditions set out under the relevant class of the GPDO, such as the transport impacts of the development, rather than conditions attached to a planning permission. I have not been directed to any part of the GPDO which seeks to prevent permitted development rights applying if they are contrary to any planning conditions imposed by a planning permission. I therefore afford this point limited weight in favour of the Council’s position.

Notwithstanding the above, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to paragraph MA.1(1)(b) of the GPDO as there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the site had been occupied for a continuous period of two years before the application was submitted by a use falling within Class E and so would not constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO.

The appeal site is within the Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area. The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. The Council has not raised any concerns in this regard, and I see no reason to disagree with this.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] - INSPECTOR