Appeal 6001081

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class G of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the change of use of first floor office (Class E) into a 1no. flat (Class C3) at [site address] in accordance with the application 19801/25 and the details submitted with it including plan no RAD3248/25/1, and subject to the following

Prior to first occupation, a noise assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall include an assessment of the existing noise environment surrounding the application site and propose mitigation to achieve the requirements of BS 8233:2014. The approved mitigation measures shall be carried out in full prior to occupation and retained thereafter.

Prior to first occupation, provision shall be made for the internal storage of bins in accordance with plan ref. RAD3248/25/1. Such provision shall be retained thereafter.

In the heading above, I have used the description of development as given on the Council’s Decision Notice as this accurately describes the proposal. However, I have removed reference to ‘prior approval’ and ‘proposed’ in the description of development that is approved as these are not acts of development.

The main issue is whether the proposal accords with the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class G of the GPDO with regard to the commencement of development.

[name].1(d) of Class G of the GPDO requires that before beginning the development the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required on a number of matters. The Council considers that the proposal has been submitted retrospectively, and on that basis it conflicts with the pre-commencement requirement of condition G.1(d). In support of this stance the Council refers to a number of matters.

First, that the property has an independent access door on [address] with a sign that reads ‘44a’. However, the appellant refers to a planning application submitted in 2008 for a change of use of the premises from residential to commercial use which was subsequently granted. The planning history of the site therefore indicates that it had a separate residential access. In any event, it is reasonable that an office can have an independent access and address.

Second, that a complaint from a member of the public in October 2023 stated that the upper floor of the property had been occupied for residential purposes by four persons for some months. Although the Council refer to an enforcement case being raised, it has provided no substantive evidence to support the allegation of the residential use. Reference is made to a letter from the Council to a tenant from April 2024 referring to the residential use of the premises, but this does not demonstrate that that use had actually commenced.

Third, that an enforcement officer observed clothing visible in a window. However, this observation is only set out in general terms, and in any event staff in offices may hang up clothing. This observation does not demonstrate that the premises was in use for residential purposes.

Fourth, that Council Tax had previously been paid for this property. However, the Council has not provided substantive evidence to support this. The appellant has also provided copies of [name] for 2023/24 and 2024/25 which supports their claim that the premises was used as an office.

On my visit, although some refurbishment work had been undertaken, I observed that the premises were vacant but had the appearance of last being used for commercial purposes, including a number of networking and power sockets as well as cable runs representative of an office use.

Based on what I have seen and read, I conclude that the property was last used as an office. The use of the property for residential purposes has not commenced, and the proposal therefore complies with the pre-commencement requirement of condition G.1(d) of Class G.

The Council has raised no concerns on the prior approval matters of condition G.1(d) of Class G subject to other appropriate conditions, or indeed any of the other elements of Class G. On the basis of the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree.

On balance, based on the evidence before me as well as my own observations, the use of the premises for residential purposes has not commenced and the premises remains classed as an office use which falls within Class E of the Use Classes Order. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal constitutes permitted development under Class G of the GPDO.

The Council has provided suggested conditions, and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these. I have considered the suggested conditions against the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance, and as a result have reworded some of the conditions in the interests of clarity and effectiveness.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring the submission of a noise assessment and the implementation of any mitigation measures. The premises is located close to a number of commercial uses, including on the ground floor under the proposed flat. The appellant submits that the use of the premises as offices included sound insulation measures to reduce noise from external sources. However, occupants of a dwelling will be more susceptible to noise and disturbance compared to staff in an office, and on that basis I consider that the submission of a noise assessment and implementation of mitigation measures prior to occupation is reasonable and necessary in the interests of the living conditions of future residents.

The proposal includes internal bin storage, but a condition requiring that this is provided prior to occupation and retained thereafter is reasonable and necessary in the interests of character and appearance.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.