Appeal 6001532

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal would fall within the provisions of permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO.

Under paragraph MA.1(1)(b) of Class MA, development is not permitted unless the use of the building falls within one or more of the uses specified for a continuous period of at least 2 years prior to the date of the application for prior approval. The specified classes include Class E of the Use Classes Order, which at Class E(g)(iii) includes an industrial process which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area.

There is a dispute between the main parties regarding the extant use of the site. The Council refers to extensive storage on the site. A Class B8 use as a storage or distribution centre is not one of the uses that falls within the scope of Class MA.

The appellant sets out that the extant business has been long-established at the site, and consists of buying redundant processing equipment (primarily relating to catering and food) which is then refurbished or modified before sale. The refurbishment or modification of the equipment would represent an industrial process. At my visit, I saw that the main building included offices and an extent of floorspace used for refurbishment operations, but also that much of the building and an external yard was used for the storage of equipment.

The appellant emphasises that equipment is worked on before being sold, which they contend means that this cannot be a ‘storage and distribution’ use. However, given that the area of storage within the site is extensive, the evidence suggests that the storage use is more than ancillary to the industrial use and is the primary use of the site. The appellant’s reference to the storage of items of no use pending more favourable scrap prices adds weight to my conclusion that storage on the site is more than ancillary.

With regard to the nature of industrial processes carried out on the site, the appellant submits that these would fall within Class E(g)(iii) of the Use Classes Order which includes an industrial process which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area. However, the Council refers to the history of the site and considers that this has more in common with a Class B2 General Industrial use, which would not fall within the scope of Class MA.

The Council has provided information from the appellant’s Company website which refers to the supply of items including pressure/vacuum and mixing vessels, blenders, centrifuges, pumps and agitation equipment, amongst other things. The testing and operation of items such as these as part of the refurbishment process may lead to disturbance from noise and vibration, and I am therefore not persuaded that industrial processes associated with the extant use could operate without detriment to the amenity of any residential area.

The appeal site is located opposite residential properties and there is no evidence of complaints from nearby residents. However, the location of the site is also not typical of a residential area, being located adjacent to a busy road and close to a number of other commercial uses as well as a cemetery. The lack of complaints from residents of nearby dwellings is therefore not conclusive evidence that the business can be operated without harm to the amenity of any residential area.

Based on what I have seen and read, the appeal site is predominantly used for storage with a limited area used for the refurbishment or modification of equipment. Although the appeal site may not be a distribution centre, the extent of storage means that the site is in effect used for a Class B8 storage use or a mixed use involving storage and industrial operations. Although the use of the site may involve some industrial processes, it has also not been demonstrated that these are of a form which can be carried out without detriment to the amenity of any residential area. It has therefore not been demonstrated that the use of the appeal site falls within the scope of Class MA.

The Council refers to a number of proposed external alterations which they consider fall outside the scope of applications for a prior approval under Class MA which relates to a change of use only. The Council submits that the proposal therefore fails to comply with relevant sections of the GPDO. However, because building operations fall outside of the scope of a Class MA application, this means that they should not be addressed as part of my consideration of this appeal. This applies even if it appears likely that building operations would be required to facilitate the change of use, as these could be subject to a later application for planning permission or addressed through other means such as permitted development rights.

Notwithstanding my conclusion in respect of building operations, it has not been demonstrated that the use of the building falls within one or more of the classes specified within paragraph MA.1(1)(b) for a continuous period of 2 years prior to the date of the application. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not constitute permitted development as defined by Class MA of the GPDO.

The Council has referred to prior approval matters, including transport, flood risk and natural light. However, as I have concluded that the proposal would not constitute permitted development then I do not need to consider these issues further.

Notwithstanding the above, I have not made any determination in law as to the established use class of the property, and this matter is more appropriately addressed through the consideration of a Lawful Development Certificate.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.