Appeal 6002104

[name] and B are dismissed.

Applications for costs were made by [name] of Moffat Investments Ltd against the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. These are the subject of a separate decision.

Appeal A was refused by the Council by decision dated 15 October 2025. The appellant subsequently submitted Appeal B, relating to the same form of development at the appeal site but with an additional annotation on the submitted plan. I have considered both on their individual merits, but as they raise similar issues, I have combined these cases into a single decision letter.

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 Order), planning permission is granted for the change of use of a building falling within use Class E (commercial, business and service) to Class C3 (dwellinghouse). This is subject to limitations and conditions, as set out in subsequent paragraphs of Class MA.

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.

The main issues in relation to both Appeal A and Appeal B are: • whether the proposal constitutes permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Order; and • if so, whether prior approval should be granted.

Notwithstanding the conditions of Class MA, Article 3(9A) of the Order provides that Schedule 2 does not permit any new dwellinghouse where the gross internal floorspace is less than 37m2 or there is not compliance with the nationally described space standard (NDSS) issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2015.

The bedroom area for the proposed unit annotated as 0J is shown as having a floor area of 13.8m2. Despite the indicated single bed (and plan annotation in relation to Appeal B), it is the size of the bedroom which determines how occupancy is defined. The area of the proposed bedroom would be above that required by the NDSS for a double (or twin) bedroom.

Regardless of the intended future occupancy, there would be sufficient space within the room for either the provision of a double bed, or two single beds. Thus, even in the absence of a maximum floor area for a single bedroom, the size of the room would encourage more than one person to live at [address] and I therefore find it entirely reasonable that the Council has assessed unit 0J as a one bedroom, two-persons unit.

For this size of dwelling across a single storey, the NDSS’s require a floor area of 50m2 which the proposals would fail to comply with in respect to unit 0J. Consequently, Article 3(9A) of the Order would not be met, and the proposals would not constitute permitted development in respect to Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Order.

The appellant has suggested that occupancy could be controlled by condition. The provisions of paragraph W of the Order apply to Class MA. [name] (13) of the Order sets out that prior approval may be granted subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. Compliance with NDSS is a prerequisite consideration as to whether the proposal constitutes permitted development, rather than relating to a subject matter of the prior approval. It is therefore not a matter which could be dealt with by condition.

As considerations in relation to prior approval are a follow-on condition stage, they can therefore only apply if the development is otherwise permitted development. As the proposals would fail to constitute permitted development, there is no need for me to consider whether prior approval is required.

The appellant has referred to previous prior approval decisions which have been approved elsewhere (in Solihull and Sefton) as single occupancy units with larger bedrooms. I have set out above why I cannot impose a condition restricting occupation. I do not have the full details of the cases referred to in the evidence before me. I therefore cannot be satisfied that the circumstances were so directly comparable to the appeal proposals before me to alter my overall conclusions.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that both [name] and B should be dismissed.