Appeal 6002174

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Leeds City Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary and Procedural Matters; [name]

The description of development in the banner heading above is based on that used on prior approval application form, rather than the slightly amended wording on the decision notice issued by the Council.

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) (hereafter “the GPDO”), the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class E (commercial, business and service) of the Use Classes Order (“the UCO”)1 to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) is permitted development. Unlike some other classes within the GPDO, Class MA does not grant permission for building operations.

The permission is subject to the limitations set out in paragraph MA.1., and it is also contingent upon compliance with the conditions in paragraph MA.2. as well as the grant of prior approval for a specific proposal. The specified matters for which prior approval must be sought are set out in sub-paragraphs MA.2.(2)(a) to (i); among them, (f) is “the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses”.

[name] sets out the procedure for applications for prior approval under Part 3 of the GPDO. Among other things, it says that where an application relates to prior approval as to adequate natural light, this must be refused if adequate natural light is not provided in all the habitable rooms of the dwellinghouse; it goes 1 The Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) on to say that applications may be refused where the decision maker considers that insufficient information has been provided in respect of other conditions, limitations and restrictions (emphasis is mine in both cases). It also provides that prior approval may be granted “unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval”.

The Council gave a single reason for which prior approval was refused: The Local Planning Authority have identified that the submitted proposed floor plans rely on the undertaking of external works to the building which have not been implemented on-site. As Class MA only only [sic] consider the change of use of a building within its existing state and does not allow for external works, the proposed internal and external layouts cannot be assessed against the provisions of this Class. Consequently, insufficient information has been provided to assess whether the building, in its current form, could provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms for the number of flats provided. As such, the submitted information is considered to be insufficient to assess the application against Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and cannot be considered to be permitted development.

Taking all of this into account, I consider that the main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be permitted development as provided for by Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO; and • If so, whether prior approval should be granted, having regard to the matters set out in [name].2 (1) of Part 20, Class A of the GPDO.

The appeal relates to a former doctors’ surgery and medical centre with pharmacy. Those uses relocated to new premises nearby some time ago. There is no dispute between the main parties that the current lawful use of the building remains within Use Class E of the UCO.

Planning permission was granted in 2024 for external alterations to the building, including rendering and new cladding to all elevations, changes to the layout of windows and doors, the removal of one roof light and installation of a further six roof lights2. The description of that development does not include any change of use.

The main parties’ evidence included an exchange of views on caselaw relating to prior approval matters, specifically the Court of Appeal’s judgment in New World Payphones3. Among other things, it was held in New World Payphones that the GPDO could not be used to obtain planning permission for a mixed planning use or “dual purpose”, because to do so would allow permission to be obtained for development that was outside the scope of that permitted under the GPDO. 2 [name]: 24/03114/FU, modified in 2025 by permission ref: 25/03336/FU 3 New World Payphones Limited v Westminster City Council and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] [name] 2250

The appellant argues that the external alterations are “enabling works” which have already been approved and are under construction, that they have not yet been completed only because of programme and budget constraints, and that the appeal proposal does not ask for the approval of external alterations. I do not fundamentally dispute any of those points. However, Class MA facilitates the change of use of buildings which are essentially already capable of providing adequate living conditions. The change of use for which prior approval is now sought is dependent on the 2024 permission being carried out, not least because the bedrooms of seven of the proposed flats would not have external windows and so would be dependent on rooflights for daylight. Those works are, as things stand, not only an essential component of the appeal scheme being able to go ahead, but fundamental as to whether it could provide adequate living conditions.

[name] acknowledge the obvious differences between the situation in New World Payphones (which related to a telephone kiosk with a digital advertisement) and this appeal scheme, in my view the “strict” interpretation of the GPDO requirements as applied by the Council is the correct one. I conclude that, because of the inclusion of building operations which are integral to the scheme, the proposal would not be permitted development.

[name] reached the alternative conclusion, that the proposal would be permitted development, it would be necessary for me to assess the prior approval matters. [name] have already noted, more than half of the bedrooms in the development would rely on roof lights for daylight. In the absence of substantive evidence such as a daylight study, there must be considerable doubt that those rooms would all receive adequate daylight.

Notwithstanding my conclusion on the first main issue, which means that it is not strictly necessary for me to consider the prior approval matters, for the reasons I have just set out it has not been adequately demonstrated that all habitable rooms would receive adequate natural daylight. If it were necessary for me to do so, I would in any event therefore conclude that prior approval should not be granted.

The appellant has argued that the development should be approved subject to a “Grampian” type condition requiring the works approved by the 2024 permission (as amended) to be carried out prior to occupation. They referred to examples of Class MA development being approved by the Council subject to conditions requiring details of bin stores, cycle stores and the like to be submitted for approval. That is not unusual, in my experience, in dealing with various classes of GPDO development.

However, while matters such as the provision of bin and cycle storage facilities may sometimes reasonably be dealt with by conditions, as I have explained above I consider that the provision of windows and rooflights here goes to the heart of whether the scheme could offer adequate living conditions for occupiers, and whether it would therefore be acceptable in principle. The strict provision relating prior approval in respect of adequate natural light in [name] of the GPDO supports my view on this matter.

The appellant referred to (and, in their costs application provided further details of) one case in which the Council imposed a condition on a Class MA approval. This required that eight apartments in a development should not be occupied until windows and rooflights proposed in a separate planning application had been approved and installed4. The reason given for that condition was “in the interests of achieving sufficient levels of natural light for the health and wellbeing of residential occupants”. [name] have not been provided with full information about that scheme, it follows from the previous paragraph that I consider the Council was quite possibly wrong to have taken that approach; that decision does not weigh significantly in favour of the appeal scheme.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.