Appeal 6002685
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
change of use of first floor (Class E) to 4no. one-bed apartments (Class C3).
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The appeal is made pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England), Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). Development is permitted under Class MA where it consists of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class E (commercial, business and service) of Schedule 2 to the Use Classes Order to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses).
[name].1 of Class MA sets out several requirements, including that the building must fall within one or more of the classes specified for a continuous period of at least two years prior to the date of the application for prior approval. Further to this, [name].2 sets out that development under Class MA is permitted subject to, amongst other aspects, an application to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required in relation to the conditions set out.
The decision notice identifies two reasons for refusal, one of which concerns whether the existing use of the building, specifically the first‐floor area, falls within Class E. At appeal, the Council accepted that, in light of the evidence submitted, this matter has been satisfactorily addressed and no longer forms a point of dispute. Accordingly, I have not considered this issue further in my assessment of the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is therefore whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to the provision of internal space.
Section 05
Reasons
Section 3 (9A) of the GPDO notes that Schedule 2 does not grant permission for or authorise any development of any new dwellinghouse where the gross internal floor area is less than 37m2 or that does not comply with the [name] (NDSS).
The proposed development comprises four one‐bedroom apartments. In each unit, the sleeping area would be located on a mezzanine level accessed via an internal staircase. The Council contends that the inclusion of a mezzanine floor constitutes an additional storey for the purposes of applying the NDSS. On this basis, the Council considers the scheme to fall within the two‐storey dwelling category.
Under the NDSS, a one‐bedroom, two‐person dwelling arranged over two storeys is required to provide a minimum gross internal floor area of 58 m2. However, this requirement applies specifically to a one‐bedroom, two‐person dwelling. The appellant maintains that each apartment is designed to accommodate a single occupant, a position supported by the submitted plans, which clearly show the provision of one single bed per unit.
Referring back to the NDSS, there is no defined minimum internal floor area for a one‐bedroom, one‐person dwelling arranged over two storeys. In the absence of such a standard, it would be unreasonable to assess the proposal against a requirement that, in policy terms, does not exist.
My attention now turns to the matter of headroom within each apartment. The introduction of a mezzanine level would inevitably reduce the available headspace across the first floor of each unit, while also positioning the sleeping area closer to the existing ceiling. The NDSS makes clear that any area with a headroom of less than 1.5 m should not be counted as usable floor space, except where it is used solely for storage, for which the proposal would not be used.
There is, however, no substantive evidence before me confirming the finished headroom either within the proposed bed‐space or within the habitable area beneath each mezzanine. In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating that the required headroom would be achieved, I cannot be satisfied that the development would comply with the relevant standard.
On this basis, I must conclude that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Section 3(9A) of the GPDO, which does not permit development that does not accord with the NDSS.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reason given above, the proposal would not satisfy Section 3 (9A) of the GPDO. Therefore, prior approval is not given. I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 4No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 March 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 March 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6002685
- Application reference
- P/25/1997/2
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Charnwood Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000130
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Change of use
- Appeal type reason
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Prior Approval
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 162 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 16 December 2025
- Valid date
- 16 December 2025
- Start date
- 8 January 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 27 March 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Back Office-s78
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 86648
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29