Wednesday 22 July 2020

Use Classes Order - “All change, please.”


The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020 No.757), which were made on 20 July and take effect on 1 September 2020, make important changes to the already much amended 1987 Use Classes Order. The changes are quite complex, because of the need to take account of various knock-on effects and the consequent requirement to include various transitional provisions to ensure a reasonably smooth move to the new and revised Use Classes.

Parts A and D of the original Schedule to the UCO are entirely revoked, which puts an end to Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5, and Classes D1 and D2. These are replaced by new Use Classes in Schedule 2, except for those listed below that have now become sui generis uses. Class B1 is also abolished as a separate Use Class, and is also subsumed within a new Use Class in Schedule 2. Use Class B2 remains in what is now Schedule 1, in an amended form. Rather than discussing these changes piecemeal, I will summarise the new, revised and surviving Use Classes below.

Several of the uses previously within specified Use Classes have now been added to the list of sui generis uses set out in Article 3(6). These are uses:

(p) as a public house, wine bar, or drinking establishment [formerly A4],
(q) as a drinking establishment with expanded food provision [which fell awkwardly between A4 and A3],
(r) as a hot food takeaway for the sale of hot food where consumption of that food is mostly undertaken off the premises [formerly A5]
(s) as a venue for live music performance [formerly within D2, and possibly also an ancillary use in some cases within other Use Classes],
(t) a cinema [formerly D2(a)],
(u) a concert hall [formerly D2(b)],
(v) a bingo hall [formerly D2(c)],
(x) a dance hall [formerly D2(d)].

[This has a number of potential consequences. First, where several of these uses fell under one and the same Use Class in the previous version of the UCO (such as, for example, a cinema, a concert hall, a bingo hall or a dance hall - all of which fell within Use Class D2) a change of use between any of those uses would not have been development.

Now that each of these uses is a sui generis use, a change of use from one of these uses to another use, even though it was formerly within the same Use Class will now constitute development, and will require planning permission. However, these changes do not take effect until 1 September, and so (at the time of writing) there is a five-week period in which somebody wishing to make a change of use from, say, a cinema to a bingo hall can still do so without requiring planning permission. However, it might be advisable to preserve dated documentary and photographic evidence of the change of use, and even possibly to exhibit that material to a statutory declaration recording the change of use, in order to counter any allegation in future that the change of use required planning permission and was therefore a breach of planning control. After 31 August, however, it will no longer be possible to make such changes of use without planning permission (unless they are permitted by the GPDO).

The effect that this and the other changes described below may have on permitted development under the GPDO is covered (at least for the next year) by a saving provision which I will explain later in this note.]

The former Schedule to the UCO (now SCHEDULE 1) contains the following Use Classes:

PART B

Class B2. General industrial

Use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within the uses described in Schedule 2, Class E, sub-paragraph (g).

Class B8. Storage or distribution

Use for storage or as a distribution centre.

PART C

[This part is not affected by the amendment regulations, and so does not require further summary here. Use Classes C1, C2, C2A, C3 and C4 therefore continue unchanged.]

The new SCHEDULE 2 contains the following Use Classes:

PART A (Commercial, Business and Service)

Class E. Commercial, Business and Service

Use, or part use, for all or any of the following purposes—

(a) for the display or retail sale of goods, other than hot food, principally to visiting members of the public [formerly A1],

(b) for the sale of food and drink principally to visiting members of the public where consumption of that food and drink is mostly undertaken on the premises [formerly A3],

(c) for the provision of the following kinds of services principally to visiting members of the public [all formerly within A2] —
(i) financial services,
(ii) professional services (other than health or medical services), or
(iii) any other services which it is appropriate to provide in a commercial, business or service locality,

(d) for indoor sport, recreation or fitness, not involving motorised vehicles or firearms, principally to visiting members of the public [formerly within D2(e)].

[Although this new Use Class makes no mention of a gymnasium, the phrase “indoor sport, recreation or fitness” would appear to be wide enough to embrace such a use, which has not been specifically added to the list of sui generis uses in Article 3(6). Similarly, although swimming baths and skating rinks are specifically included in Use Class F, this use would also appear to be capable of falling within new Use Class E (under paragraph E(d)), because there is no provision that excludes the use in new Class F.2 from alternatively falling within Class E. As with several other queries of this nature, I have not yet understood the ramifications of this apparent confusion.]

(e) for the provision of medical or health services, principally to visiting members of the public, except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner [formerly D1(a)],

[I cannot see why there is a need to distinguish between E(c)(ii) (which does not include health or medical services) and E(e), which comprises those services, when both are now in one and the same Use Class (Class E).]

(f) for a crèche, day nursery or day centre, not including a residential use, principally to visiting members of the public [formerly D1(b)],

(g) for—
(i) an office to carry out any operational or administrative functions [formerly B1(a)],
(ii) the research and development of products or processes [formerly B1 (b)], or
(iii) any industrial process [formerly B1(c)],
- being a use [in all three cases, as in the former Class B1] which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit.

[One potentially problematic change is that the list of other uses that were formerly included in Use Class A1 (shops) are omitted. Without that listing, quite a few of those uses would not have come within the A1 Use Class, because they did not comprise or include (except as a purely ancillary use in some cases) the retail sale of goods. They included (among other uses) use as a post office, a travel or ticket agency, hairdressing, a funeral business, or a hire shop.

The new Use Class E does include “any other services which it is appropriate to provide in a commercial, business or service locality”, and it may be that all the uses formerly listed in Use Class A1 would now come within this category. If so, the new Use Class could be even wider than the Use Classes that it replaces, and might well embrace other services that one might reasonably expect to find in a commercial, business or service locality. These could include, for example, a nail bar, a tattoo parlour, a body toning salon, a tanning studio, etc. etc. If this interpretation is correct, then there is scope for a very wide range of uses that would previously have been regarded as sui generis.

On the other hand, there have in the past been appeal decisions in which it was held that a ‘weight loss centre’, a ‘body toning salon’, a ‘tanning shop’ and a ‘tattoo studio’ did not come into the category of “other services which it is appropriate to provide in a shopping area”, and it would seem to be entirely possible that planning inspectors might similarly determine in future (as a matter of fact and degree) that such uses do not properly fall within this category and therefore remain sui generis. The resulting ambiguity in the drafting of the new regulations is unfortunate, and is likely to cause difficulty for developers, building owners and the proprietors of businesses and also for LPAs.]

PART B (Local Community and Learning)

Class F.1 Learning and non-residential institutions

Any use not including residential use—

(a) for the provision of education [formerly D1(c)],
(b) for the display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire) [formerly D1(d)],
(c) as a museum [formerly D1(e)],
(d) as a public library or public reading room [formerly D1(f)],
(e) as a public hall or exhibition hall [formerly D1(g)],
(f) for, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction [formerly D1(h)],
(g) as a law court [formerly D1(i)].

Class F.2 Local community

Use as—

(a) a shop mostly selling essential goods, including food, to visiting members of the public in circumstances where—
(i) the shop’s premises cover an area not more than 280 metres square, and
(ii) there is no other such facility within 1000 metre radius of the shop’s location,

[These uses were formerly within A1, and it would appear that they are also capable of falling within new Use Class E, because there is no provision that excludes the uses in new Class F.2 from alternatively, falling within Class E. The ramifications of this apparent confusion will only become apparent as the interpretation of these new provisions is explored in practice.]

(b) a hall or meeting place for the principal use of the local community,

[This use (formerly within D1(g)) would also appear to be capable of falling within new Use Class F.1, because there is no provision that excludes the use in new Class F.2 from alternatively falling within Class F.1. Here again, I have not yet understood the ramifications of this apparent confusion],

(c) an area or place for outdoor sport or recreation, not involving motorised vehicles or firearms [formerly within D2(e)],

(d) an indoor or outdoor swimming pool or skating rink [also formerly within D2(e)]

[So far as an indoor swimming pool or skating rink are concerned, here again, this use would also appear to be capable of falling within new Use Class E (under paragraph E(d)), because there is no provision that excludes the use in new Class F.2 from alternatively falling within Class E. This is another case in which I have not yet understood the ramifications of this apparent confusion.]

You may wonder why, following the abolition of the Use Classes in Parts A and D of the former Schedule to the UCO, the new Use Classes have been designated as E, F.1 and F.2. Well, as Polonius observed, though this be madness, yet there is method in’t. As we shall see below, the former Use Classes that have been removed from the UCO will still have a ghostly after-life. So to avoid confusion with these wraith-like entities, the new Use Classes have been given entirely new designations.

The most significant effect of the recast Use Classes is to produce much larger classes of uses that are covered by each of Parts E and F (Classes E, F.1 and F.2). In accordance with Article 3(1) of the UCO, where a building or other land is used for a purpose of any class specified in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, the use of that building or that other land for any other purpose of the same class shall not be taken to involve development of the land. This is slightly modified by paragraph (1A), so that (additionally) the use of that building or that other land, or if specified, the use of part of that building or the other land (“part use”), for any other purpose of the same class is not to be taken to involve development of the land. Section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act also continues to apply in this context.

So to take a few random examples, a change of use between a retail shop and a restaurant, a bank or building society (or any other kind of office, whether it was formerly in Use Classes A2 or B1(a)), a doctor’s or dentist’s surgery, a light industrial use or a crèche, day nursery or day centre, which are all now with Use Class E, will not constitute development and will not therefore require planning permission. Where any changes of use between these uses was formerly PD under the GPDO those permitted development rights will no longer be required, and any restrictions, limitations or conditions applying to such PD will no longer apply.

In the case of Class F.1, all the uses listed in this Use Class were formerly within Class D1, and so there is no change in that regard, except that the scope for changes of use that do not constitute development is slightly reduced, because the provision of medical and health services and use as a crèche, day nursery or day centre are no longer in the same Use Class (as they now fall within Class E).

The purpose and effect of Use Class F.2 is somewhat puzzling. Quite apart from the overlap of certain ‘community’ uses with similar uses in other Use Classes which I have noted above, it appears to be the intention that a use such as a community hall could have its use changed (in whole or in part) to a community shop, without needing planning permission.

The observations I have set out above represent only my first impression of the new provisions, and there may be other ramifications and unforeseen consequences that I have not yet identified.

Now, excuse me while I wrap a wet towel around my head to prevent my brain from overheating, and I’ll try to explain the transitional, savings and consequential provisions.

First of all, between 1 September 2020 and 31 July 2021, any references in the GPDO to the uses or use classes specified in the Schedule to the Use Classes Order are to be read as if those references were to the uses or use classes which applied on 31st August 2020 (i.e. before the UCO was amended by the current regs). If between those two dates, a prior approval application is made under Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO, or if an Article 4 Direction is made, modified or cancelled, it is the pre-September 2020 uses, use classes and definitions that are to apply to that application or to that Direction. If an Article 4 Direction is made before 1 September 2020, references in the Direction to pre-September 2020 uses or use classes are to continue to be read as references to those uses or use classes.

In the same way, if a planning application (including an application for PiP or an application for the approval of reserved matters) is made before 1 September 2020, referring to a pre-September 2020 use or use class, that application must be determined by reference to that pre-September 2020 use or use class. (There are one or two other minor transitional provisions which I don’t propose to go into here.)

On the other hand, where a building or other land is being used for the purpose Class A1 (Shops), Class A2 (Financial and professional services), Class A3 (Restaurants and cafes), or Class B1 (Business), that building or other land is to be treated, on or after 1st September 2020, as if it is being used for the corresponding purpose specified in Class E (Commercial, business and service) in Schedule 2.

Most readers are no doubt aware of the provision in Article 3(4) of the UCO which provided that where land on a single site or on adjacent sites used as part of a single undertaking is used for purposes consisting of or including purposes falling within use classes B1 and B2, those classes could be treated as a single class in considering the use of that land for the purposes of the UCO, provided that the area used for a purpose falling within Class B2 was not substantially increased as a result. This provision is now replaced by a similar provision which refers to the use described in Schedule 2, Class E, sub-paragraph (g) and the modified Class B2 in Schedule 1, so that those classes may be treated as a single class in considering the use of that land for the purposes of this Order, so long as the area used for a purpose falling within Class B2, or Class B2 as modified, is not substantially increased as a result.

Now, I must take a deep breath before plunging into the No.2 and No.3 amendment orders to the GPDO, with their interesting new permitted development rights. Such fun!

ADDENDUM: When writing the blog post above, I was focusing on the amendments to the Schedule to the Use Classes Order. I should also have drawn attention to Regulation 7 of the Use Classes amendment regulations. This provides that for the purposes of the Use Classes Order, if a building or other land is being used for a purpose that, on 31st August 2020, fell within any of Use Classes A1 (Shops), A2 (Financial and professional services), A3 (Restaurants and cafes), or B1 (Business), that building or other land is to be treated, on or after 1st September 2020, as if it is being used for a purpose specified within the new Class E (Commercial, business and service).

Thus, those uses that were expressly specified as being within Use Class A1 (such as, among other things, use as a Post Office, as a Travel Agent, for hairdressing, or for the direction of funerals, etc. etc.) will definitely come within Use Class E. I am sorry that I failed to spell this out.

UPDATE (28.8.20): Two minor corrections have had to be made to the drafting of the UCO amendment regs, by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) (No 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020 No.859) and ditto (No.3) Regs (SI 2020 No.895). The first correction relates to CIL, and preserves references to the Use Classes that applied when an LPA adopted a charging schedule. The second correction relates to a local community shop falling within Use Class F.2. The definition as originally drafted referred to the shop’s premises covering an area not more than “280 metres square”. The corrected version changes this to “280 square metres”.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

39 comments:

  1. Thank you for, as usual a very useful commentary on changes that may yet again create more problems than they solve.

    The change from old Classes A3 & A5 to new classes E (b) & sui-generis seems to put a great deal of weight on the term ‘mostly’; which I assume will be a planning solicitors’ friend for some time.

    A3 & A5 is clear;

    • A3 - Restaurants and cafés - For the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises - restaurants, snack bars and cafes

    • A5 - Hot food takeaways - For the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises

    Thus, if a restaurant wanted to also sell takeaways (outside the current temporary arrangement for Covid-19) planning permission is required because the new mixed use is sui-generis.

    However, from 1st September we will have;

    • E b) - for the sale of food and drink principally to visiting members of the public where consumption of that food and drink is mostly undertaken on the premises

    • Sui-generis - a hot food takeaway for the sale of hot food where consumption of that food is mostly undertaken off the premises

    What does the term ‘mostly’ mean? Is it to be quantified by floorspace, turnover or number of customers? I welcome your views on this?

    I also assume that if an older A3 permission had a condition attached restricting food sales to cold food only, which was fairly common, permission would still be required to remove that condition, although since the introduction of class A5 such conditions were not considered necessary. Thus, this creates the interesting situation where older A3 uses may need permission to continue the use not in compliance with a condition to change to ‘mostly’ takeaway, but newer ones will not.

    I look forward to your next blog.

    Regards
    Rob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I entirely agree with Rob's observations.

      I have considerable misgivings about the abolition of both Use Classes A4 and A5, and their being made sui generis uses. This is hardly the sort of 'liberalisation' of the planning system that will assist our hard-pressed hospitality industry in the wake of the coronavirus crisis.

      Regarding existing planning conditions, as I have observed in reply to another comment, the Interpretation Act 1978 will probably ensure the continued enforceability of conditions that referred to previous Use Classes.

      Delete
  2. Thank you for a really excellent summary! I think the 'material period' is to the 31st July 2021 not 31st August 2021.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you're right. I'll correct this date in the main text of this blog post.

      Delete
  3. Hi Martin, really useful explanation as always. Two questions; will previous planning conditions on a property preventing alternative uses have any effect (like they did for PDR) and would councils be able to use article 4 directions? My feelings on both are no as the changes of use within class e won't be development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So far as conditions are concerned, it is well settled law (see for example City of London Corporation v SSE, among others) that a condition can preclude a change of use within a single Use Class, notwithstanding section 55(2)(f) and Article 3(1) of the UCO. The same would apply in respect of an existing Article 4 Direction, but only with regard to any changes of use which are permitted development (or would be, were it not for the Direction).

      As to whether a condition referring to a Use Class that has now been replaced would apply to the new Use Class, my view is that section 17(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (read together with section 23) ensures that the condition would still apply and would still be enforceable. However, I would concede that there might be some uncertainty about this where the old and the new Use Class differed significantly in their scope.

      As regards an Article 4 Direction, this can only preclude the type or types of permitted development specified by the Direction. A change of use within one and the same Use Class is not permitted development (in fact it is not development at all) and so it cannot be prevented by an Article 4 Direction.

      Delete
    2. Hi Martin. Thank you for a very helpful summary. One thing I have been mulling over is whether the transitional provisions you refer to potentially provide scope for LPAs to bring forward Article 4 Directions under the existing UCO that could then preclude changes of use within the Use Classes in the new UCO. I'd be interested to know your thoughts

      Delete
    3. I think the answer to this question is ‘No’. At some time between now and the end of July 2021 (when the transitional provisions relating to those classes of PD that require prior approval will expire), I expect MHCLG to make a further amendment order to the GPDO, which among other things will probably remove those PD rights from the GPDO that have been made redundant by the reorganisation of the Use Classes, and will specify the new Use Classes to which continuing PD rights will in future apply.

      So, in relation to any change of use that will in future be between uses that then fall into the same Use Class as each other, there will be nothing on which an Article 4 Direction relating to a PD right that currently permits such a change of use can ‘bite’, because it will no longer be PD; it will simply not be development, by reason of section 55(2)(f). This will apply from 1 September; there will be no need to rely on any redundant PD right after that date. On the other hand, an Article 4 Direction made before 1 September will, as I have explained, be construed in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1978 where it relates to PD rights that will be continuing.


      Delete
    4. Hi Martin, thanks for your very helpful analysis. I just wanted to pick up on this point. I am a little confused about the transitional provisions relating to the GPDO. Your interpretation above is that any change of use between uses falling into the same Use Class as each other (e.g. the new class E) will not be development from 1 September, by reason of section 55(2)(f) and that and any PD rights relating to those uses will be redundant after that date.

      However, the Regulations also state that, whilst the new uses come into effect on 1 September, these new uses will not be applied to the GPDO until 31 July 2021. So any application during this time for prior approval (or judging whether such approval is required) will be determined with reference to the current Order.

      It is therefore not clear to me whether the GPDO will still apply until July 2021 to a change within the same use class that used to require prior approval (e.g. a change from A1 to A3 - now both within Class E)?

      Thanks

      Delete
    5. I agree that, at first sight, it’s confusing. However, everything will fall into place if you hold firmly in mind the fact that a change of use within one and the same class is not development (by virtue of section 55(2)(f) whereas, on the other hand, a change of use from one Use Class to anotheris development, which requires planning permission. That planning permission is, of course, granted in quite a few cases by the GPDO, and so is ‘permitted development’.

      Where, on or after 1 September, a change of use is made from use as a shop to use as a café, no development will be involved, because (from that date) both uses now fall within Use Class E. The permitted development in Part 3, Class C of the GPDO (which would have required a prior approval application in respect of certain matters) can therefore be ignored, because it’s no longer development and is covered by section 55(2)(f) and so does not require planning permission.

      Take, on the other hand, a change of use from use as a wine bar to use as a shop (which is permitted development under Part 3, Class A). This refers to a change of use from Use Class A3, A4 or A5 to a use within Use Class A1 or A2. In the case of a wine bar, the change of use will in future be from a sui generis use to a use within Use Class E, for which the GPDO as it stands art present makes no provision. However, until 31 July 2021, reliance can still be placed on the GPDO, as if the old Use Classes still applied (but only for the purpose of development which cannot take place except in reliance on permitted development rights granted by the GPDO).

      It’s a slightly messy situation, which had to be tackled by a transitional provision in the recent UCO amendment regulations, which should be resolved when a future amendment order is made to bring the classes of permitted development under the GPDO into line with the new Use Classes in the UCO (at some time between now and 31 July 2021).

      This query has reminded me of one point that had not previously occurred to me. Until now, if someone wants to convert a shop to a café or restaurant, Part 3, Class C has required a prior approval application in respect of noise impacts, odour impacts, opening hours and transport and highways impacts. All this now goes by the board, because this change of use will no longer be development, and so there will be no control whatsoever over these matters. I see considerable scope for complaints of nuisance arising in future, especially as regards cooking smells, noise and late opening.

      Delete
  4. For years people proposing out-of-town retail have to undertake a sequential test and, if they get permission, frequently condns such as non-food or bulky goods only are imposed. Now all they need to do is find an empty B1 factory and Bob's your uncle. This will really help town centres which are struggling already.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good morning Martin,

    Just one comment/question. What effect will the new rights conferred in new Use Class E have on properties in a Conservation Area? Will they benefit from Use Class E or will, by way of example, a proposed change of use from a dental surgery (old D1(a)) to an office (old B1(a)) in a building within a Conservation Area still require an application for COU? If not,whither Conservation Areas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is important to understand that the UCO does not confer any development rights; it simply assigns various uses to specific Use Classes (and also identifies certain sui generis uses). Subject to certain transitional provisions, the use of a building is identified by the UCO as it currently exists at any particular time, so when the UCO changes, the Use Class of a building changes with it, irrespective of the date when it was built, or of the date when the current use started.

      Section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act and Article 3(1) of the UCO provide that a change of use within one and the same Use Class is not development (although it can be precluded by an appropriately worded condition in a planning permission). So to take the example cited by Chris Chinnor, a dental surgery (old D1(a)) and an office (old B1(a)) will both now be within Use Class E, so no development will be involved if, after 1 September, this change of use takes place. It makes no difference whether it is a listed building, or it is within a conservation area, National Park or AONB (etc. etc.).

      Delete
  6. Head spinning.

    Re some of the repetition and overlap in the new classes I can only imagine the intent is to draft some new PD rights which trigger or exclude based on these new classes. For example perhaps the plan is to exclude Class F community shops from plans to allow PD c/use of other shops?


    As an aside, whilst a change of use within one and the same Use Class is not development I have always felt that a specific change across UCO boundaries can only be held to be development if it is first and foremost a material change as a matter of degree. (On the principle that the exclusion of certain acts from the definition of development does not create an absolute rule that all other acts are development. There is after all nothing in S55 I believe that dictates that crossing a boundary within the UCO is development and whilst most such changes will be material this is case specific and fact sensitive IMO.) The most common example under the old UCO was c/use from a hairdresser to a nail salon. A1 to sui generis in UCO terms, but often no material change in the character or impact of the use on the ground.



    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for this very helpful analysis. If this change in the law was meant to make everything easier, then I’m not sure it’s succeeded! Incidentally, your blog is always my first port of call on planning matters, and I've linked to this post on my property law blog Digging the Dirt (www.jondickins.com).

    ReplyDelete
  8. One of the stated aims by the government was not to affect community uses and shops in villages etc with these changes, but seems to fail in both the areas set aside for it.

    First on shops, the transitional provisions are quite stark in saying that an A1 use on the 31 August is Class E on the 1st September and there is no exclusion in class E that refers to a use that might otherwise be Class F. Even without this, the regulation of whether a shop is E or F seems impossible,as suddenly a unit becomes Class E because a new shop opens or a cafe or office is converted nearby , or a small shop unit becomes the last shop in the village, so it is now class F!

    Also how many churches and Public Halls accomodate regular creches and daycare settings that will now be in Class E and, unless some changes are coming down the line in the GDPO, they will have until July next year to get permission or get out!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lots to take in / consider. Thank you for your observations Martin. The F.2 Class does appear to be a misdirected attempt at protecting these uses as it allows changes of use within the class. It would have made much more sens to just add these uses to the list of Sui Generis uses as they have done with pubs. the 'Local shops' definition is problematic as other have identified above, changes of use outside of the shop owners control could see the shop flit between Class E and Class F.2..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good Morning Martin,

    So am I reading this correctly that any out of centre Office/B1 industrial unit could now be used as a Retail store (formerly A1), without any need for even notifying the Council? Surely, that undermines the very function of town centres and the sequential approach set out in the NPPF. Do you know of any plans in pace to restrict this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Change of use between what used to be A1, A2 and/or B1 will now be entirely possible without any development being involved, by virtue of section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act (and also Article 3(1) of the UCO).

      A preclusive condition in an existing planning permission, or in a future one, to the effect that the building is to be used "for [X] and for no other use whatsoever" might well be effective to prevent such changes of use within Class E. An Article 4 Direction can't touch it because no development (and therefore no PD) is involved.

      I think it can be assumed that if the government was contemplating any restriction on such changes of use within Class E, they would have included a provision in the amendment order to that effect. The whole philosophy of these changes to the UCO is to allow much greater freedom in the use of commercial premises.

      Delete
    2. Many thanks for taking your time to reply. Much apprecaited. The intentions behind the changes seem admirable, but I can see some very unitended consquences here. Certainly, us in LPA's are wincing.

      Delete
  11. So what is top stop you from using Use Class E to go from Doctors to a shop and then using Class G put two flats above it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not so sure. Arguably, the 'qualifying' use for the purposes of Class G in Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO must be one that would formerly have fallen within Use Class A1, rather than any other use that now falls within Use Class E. Following the change that puts a doctor’s surgery in Class E, I think the rule in Kwik Save Discount Group Ltd v SSW [1981] J.P.L 198 might apply. This established that the pre-existing use on which a PD right under Class 3 is based must have continued for long enough to be more than purely nominal. How long this period should be has never been definitively determined, but clearly two months (the period of the pre-existing use in Kwik Save) is insufficient, and it has been suggested that it ought to be as long as a year. So this would suggest that a decent interval after the change from a doctor's surgery to a shop (during which there should be a genuine retail business in operation) should elapse before the change of use to a shop plus up to two flats above could take place.

      Delete
  12. Martin many thanks again.
    In anticipation of you currently wording some comment on Class ZA being Amendments to Part 20 of Schedule 2 please may you consider including a brief comment on the definition of "Demolition" in this context - would this have to be the whole or part of a building eg. the roof materials alone. My context question being can this new Class ZA effectively replace Class PA ? I am aware you wrote in 2014 when considering the definition of "Demolition"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if the amendment to Article 2 answers your question? The ZA amendment No3 includes an amendment to Article 2 such that a “building” includes “any structure or erection…..except in Class ZA of Part 20, of Schedule 2, includes any PART of a building…”

      BP

      Delete
    2. Yes, this is a point I was going to make myself when I get around to writing up Class ZA. Although it has been the rule for many years that a “building” for the purposes of the GPDO also includes part only of a building (i.e. the part in respect of which PD is carried out.), this amendment to Article 2 underlines the intention that that rule will not apply to demolition and replacement of part only of a building – it must be the whole building or nothing.

      Delete
  13. I am afraid that I approach the latest changes to the GPDO with a distinct lack of enthusiasm. But I'll certainly try yo pick up the various comments that have been made when reviewing Class ZA in Part 20. This is clearly the provision that requires attention first and foremost. Classes AA, AB, AC, AD, etc. and also Class AA in Part 1 will have to wait until after I have got my head around Class ZA, its interpretation and implications.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello Martin. Another great summary. Reg 7 states that where a building or other land is used within classes A1, A2, A3 or B1 prior to 1 September 2020, on or after 1 September 2020 the building or other land will be treated as being within Class E for the purposes of the Use Classes Order. There does not seem to be any equivalent provision in relation to Classes A4, A5 or Class D (i.e. nothing which says that those uses will be treated as sui generis uses). Is there a reason why the regulations are drafted in this way? Presumably to ensure that former A1, A2, A3 or B1 uses do not accidentally fall outside of Class E into a sui generis use?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The former A4 and A5 uses (and also A4 “with expanded food provisions”) have been specifically added to the list of sui generis uses in Article 3(6), so they definitely cannot fall within Use Class E.

      I think there is general agreement that all those uses that formerly fell within Classes A1 and A2 are now within Use Class E (as E(c)(iii) “any other services which it is appropriate to provide in a commercial, business or service locality”). The only uncertainty is whether some other uses that were found on appeal not to fall within Class A1 or A2 might also now come within E(c)(iii). These could not, of course include any of those uses formerly within A1 or A2 which are specifically listed as sui generis uses in Article 3(6).

      Former Part D uses are now split between Use Classes E and F.1 (and, potentially in some cases, F.2).

      Delete
  15. Hi Martin, Regulation 7 states that a building 'being used' on 31st August 2020 for A1/A2/A3/B1 purposes shall be treated as being used for the new class E from the 1st of September. It doesn't refer to buildings that are not in use on that date though, so where would vacant buildings or buildings under construction stand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have always taken the view that, for most planning purposes, a building (or land) is in use on a given date if it was previously used for that purpose and this use has not permanently ceased and/or the right, in planning terms, to use it for that purpose has not been lost or removed in any other way. A use can be ‘dormant’ but nevertheless still extant.

      [The one area in which this does not apply is where there is discontinuity in a use that has not yet become lawful under the 4-year rule or under the 10-year rule (whichever is applicable). In that case, continuity of use is essential, and the use must remain active until lawfulness has been achieved. However, once that point has passed, the rule in Panton and Farmer allows subsequent discontinuity in the use, provided that the use remains extant at the time when any LDC application is made.]

      Delete
  16. Hi Martin, I am trying to get my head around what this means for making Article 4 directions to control office to resi conversions if the Article 4 consultation/notice period starts after 1st Sept 2020 and then is confirmed 12 months later (i.e. in September 2021) to avoid compensation claims. My reading is that this is still possible as the offices covered by the Article 4 direction would be defined by the previous usage classes - or are LPAs now required to do a new type of Article 4 restricting change of use from the new Class E to resi? Matt

    ReplyDelete
  17. My impression is that either of these alternatives would be effective to remove the relevant PD right, bearing in mind both the saving provisions in the GPDO amendment and also the effect of the Interpretation Act. On the other hand, if the LPA consults on an Article 4 Direction in one form, but then makes/confirms it in a different form, this could conceivably cause legal problems.

    An Article 4 Direction referring only to former Use Class B1(a) would have a more limited effect than a direction referring to Use Class E. The former would preclude residential development only under Class O, whereas the latter could prevent such conversions under other classes, such as Class M.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Really useful entry as ever Martin! One thing I cannot find in terms of clarity is what happens when you come to submit Reserved Matters under an Outline Consent, which defines the uses permitted, that was approved before the advert of Class E. Are your Reserved Matters tied to the "old" uses as defined in the Outline, or should they follow the "new" uses? Supposing your outline is for A1 floorspace, can your RM come forward with equivalent Class E space at RM, or does it have to be "shops"? I can see nothing specific in the Legislation or the Transitional Provisions. Many thanks in advance if anyone can settle this please!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The answer is set out in the amendment regs. Reg 4 [read with the interpretation clause in Reg 1(3)] provides that if prior to 1 September 2020, an application was submitted (or was deemed to be submitted) to an LPA for planning permission, for permission in principle, or for the approval of any reserved matter under section 92 of the 1990 Act, which referred to uses or Use Classes that were specified in the Schedule to the Use Classes Order until 31 August 2020, that application must be determined by reference to those former uses or Use Classes.

      However, I am not yet sure what the position is if a reserved matters application is made on or after 1 September, where the outline permission was granted on or before 31 August and referred to a former use class that has now been subsumed within one of the new larger use classes (e.g. Class E). I am currently writing a Supplement to The Essential Guide to the Use of Land and Buildings under the Planning Acts and so I shall have to puzzle out an answer to this, if I can.

      We have decided to issue a Supplement, rather than a new edition of the book, because there are obviously going to be further changes, possibly to the UCO itself, and certainly to the GPDO, which should (if the government meets its self-imposed deadline) take effect no later than 1 August 2021, and that is when it will be appropriate to consider publishing a Second Edition of the book picking up all of these changes.

      Delete
    2. Thanks so much Martin. Really helpful. I wonder if the Government is aware of this gap in the legislation? Looking forward to the next instalment of your book which I thoroughly recommend to everyone on here.

      Delete
    3. The answer to the second part of the question discussed above in response to Richard R’s query suddenly came to me in the shower this morning (as these things do) when I wasn’t even thinking about the UCO. The answer is in fact already in the existing text of my book, on page 115 (Chapter 10, paragraph 10.1). Paragraph 22 in former Circular 03/2005 pointed out than an unimplemented planning permission granted before a change in the UCO will take effect as a permission to use the resulting development in accordance with the relevant Use Class as it applied when the permission was issued. Thus the approval of reserved matters in accordance with an outline permission issued before 1 September 2020 must be dealt with in accordance with the UCO in the form in which it then existed.

      This is, in fact, in accordance with the well-established rule that the details submitted for approval must be within the scope of the outline permission (‘within the four corners of the permission’ is a phrase that I recall having been used). When the permission comes to be implemented, the initial use of the development will be restricted to the description of the development in the permission (including the former Use Class) (see Wilson v W Sussex CC and E Suffolk CC v SSE). However, after the PP is implemented, a change of use within the scope of the new Use Class will then be possible (by virtue of section 55(2)(f)), subject possibly to the rule in Kwik Save as regards its timing, and provided that the PP does not contain a condition precluding changes of use under section 55(2)(f).

      Delete
  19. We are converting an old church and whilst some of the issues seem to be covered in earlier posts. I would be grateful for clarification on a few points The permission from D1 to D2 Events space at the front and Gym in the separate part of the building at the rear was granted in March 2018 subject to 36 conditions These are just about fulfilled where they were preventing start on site.
    I did note the comment about gymnasium…
    new Use Class makes no mention of a gymnasium, the phrase “indoor sport, recreation or fitness” would appear to be wide enough to embrace such a use, which has not been specifically added to the list of sui generis uses in Article 3(6) ….

    More disconcerting was the discovery that the front use as an Events Space seems not to be listed as a D2 use but I assume that it will become a sui generis use on 1st September 2021
    What I wonder about is the fact that there are two different uses in different parts of what was one building (there is a third part that was granted residential prior to our ownership and this was sold off many years ago.) But does that mean that the D2 Gym use can only be changed within D2 till 31st August 2021 and that it can not be moved around in the new E class when the transition period ends? Will it be sui generis because it’s from the same application?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A planning permission granted before 1 September 2020 will take effect in accordance with the use(s) and/or Use Class(es) specified in the planning permission (i.e. by reference to the Use Classes that applied up to 31 August 2020). In any event, a planning permission, when first implemented, can only authorise the development that was described in that permission (as per Wilson v West Sussex and E Suffolk v SSE). Any conditions as to the future use of the premises that were imposed on the planning permission will continue in full force and effect.

      After the planning permission has been implemented (although, in my view, only after a decent interval, by the analogy with the rule in Kwik Save) a change of use within the [post September 2020] Use Class in which each planning unit then falls can be made, in accordance with section 55(2)(f), provided that this is not prevented by any of the conditions attach to the PP.

      It sounds as though there may be more than one planning unit in this case (in accordance with the rule in Burdle), and each of these must be separately considered. The government’s intention is clearly that a gymnasium will now fall within Use Class E, as “indoor sport, recreation or fitness”, even though a ‘gymnasium’ is not specifically mentioned as such.

      Delete
  20. Yes, that is very helpful and confirms much of what we thoughts. Thank You for you comments

    ReplyDelete

NEW COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG ARE NOW CLOSED.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.