Office conversion opportunities unlocked
Inspector's ruling eases office-to-residential conversions under permitted development rights.
An Inspector’s recent ruling has potential to unlock additional office to residential conversion opportunities. The appeal case dealt with the question of whether a planning condition restricting the use of a building within Class E, necessarily precludes permitted development. By shedding light on the interpretation of restrictive conditions in the context of the General Permitted Development Order, the decision serves as a useful reference for justifying the use of Class MA to support changes of use.
Class MA, under Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, allows for the change of use of offices (and other Class E land uses) to dwellinghouses (Use Class C3). An application for prior approval is still required to be submitted to the local planning authority, but this is highly simplified, much quicker and cheaper option compared to a traditional planning application. Subject to ticking all the boxes, a proposal ‘automatically’ warrants approval, without the detailed policy considerations which complicate the assessment of planning applications.
The appeal focused on a Class MA application for a site within Estune Business Park, which sought a change of use of existing office space into six new flats. The application had been refused by North Somerset Council, on the grounds that a condition attached to the original planning application for the building restricts the use of the building to the former Use Class B1 and, therefore, is not permitted development, on the basis that Article 3(4) of the GPDO states ‘nothing in this Order permits development contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission granted or deemed to be granted under Part 3 of the Act otherwise than by this Order’.
Via the application of case law in Trump International [2015] and Dunnett Investments [2017], the Inspector devised that the condition did not need to specify exclusion of the provisions of the GPDO, but that, equally, the objective of the condition and the permission as a whole must be interpreted as a clear intention by the council to exclude the provisions of the GPDO.
In the circumstances of the case, the Inspector pointed to the reasoning given for the condition and interpreted that the condition in question is narrow in its restriction and seeks only to restrict alternative employment uses in order to protect the amenity of nearby residential properties, and does not restrict the application of permitted development rights for the conversion of existing employment space for housing. As such, Article 3(4) of the GPDO is not engaged and permitted development is not precluded by virtue of the condition. The Inspector allowed the appeal and in so doing prior approval was granted, allowing for the change of use for office to residential to proceed as permitted development.
Beyond this particular scheme, the logic of the findings is widely applicable for developments across England.
Where existing offices are bound by similar conditions thought previously to preclude the application of Class MA, this appeal provides new clarity and a green-light for conversions into residential use utilising permitted development rights. This may create opportunities for vacant or underperforming office stock across the country to be released, where local policies may otherwise restrict against this. For a nation in the grips of a housing crisis, this may also signal good news in delivering much-needed new housing. Provided within the established urban fabric, such office to residential conversions reflect a sustainable approach to accommodating growth, whilst also injecting life into tired town centres.
Of course this would be subject to satisfying all of the criteria for permitted development under Class MA of the GPDO, and we would recommend obtaining the advice of a planning consultant so as your application is granted the best prospect of success. Talk to a real estate professional to understand the market value that could be unlocked through the repositioning of your property assets.
If you would like to discuss the ruling and how it may affect your projects, please get in touch with our planning team.
- Appeal Ref: APP/D0121/W/23/3328409
- Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 74; [2016] 1 WLR 85
- Dunnett Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWCA Civ 192
