Case 3276620

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
21 September 2021
Authority
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Inspector
Cooper P
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Change of use
Appellant
Greatglen Estates Ltd
Agent
EA Town Planning Ltd
LPA reference
RB2021/0206
ONS LPA code
E08000018
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
15 July 2021

Summary AI

The appeal is allowed as the proposed development is eligible for conversion under permitted development rules. The proposal meets the requirements of Class M and does not pose unacceptable risks.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 September 2021 by Paul Cooper MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/P4415/W/21/3276620 67-71 Laughton Road, Dinnington, Rotherham S25 2PN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr Daniel Adler (Greatglen Estates Ltd) against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref RB2021/0206, dated 28 January 2021, was refused by notice dated 30 March 2021. • The development proposed is Prior Notification for the proposed Change of Use of a building from Retail (Use Class A1 or A2) to Dwellinghouse (4 No. Flats) (Use Class C3). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and approval is granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (As amended) for Prior Notification for the proposed Change of Use of a building from Retail (Use Class A1 or A2) to Dwellinghouse (4 No.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Flats) (Use Class C3) at 67-71 Laughton Road, Dinnington, Rotherham S25 2PN in accordance with the terms of the application RB2021/0206, dated 28 January 2021, including the plan references: 2021.12-4.LP, AR.02.EX.01, AR.02 EX.02, AR.02.PR.201, LR 67-71.PR.202. Procedural Matter 2. I have taken the description of development from the Decision Notice of the Council as it is far more concise than that on the application form. I note that the appellant has also used it on the appeal form. I am satisfied that neither party is prejudiced by this course of action. 3. Since the application was determined, the Use Classes Order has been amended, and Class A has now been amended to Class E. My decision refers to the revised Use Classes Background and Main Issue 4. Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the GPDO provides a permitted development right for the change of use of a building falling within use class E (shops) to dwelling houses (class C3). This is subject to limitations and conditions, as set out in subsequent paragraphs of Class M of the GPDO.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The application that led to this appeal sought prior approval to determine whether the proposal was eligible for the permitted development right, and whether the limitations and conditions of Class M were met. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The application that led to this appeal sought prior approval to determine whether the proposal was eligible for the permitted development right, and whether the limitations and conditions of Class M were met. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P4415/W/21/3276620 5. The Council’s sole reason for refusing the application indicate that the requirements of Class M are not met because the proposed development is mixed use, with part of the ground floor being retained as a shop. The Council have indicated there is no other reason for refusal and the evidence before me indicates the Council agree that the proposal meets the relevant requirements set out in the GPDO. 6. The main issue in this appeal is therefore whether the building is eligible for conversion under the permitted development rules in Class M. Reasons 7. The building was previously a retail unit, and I understand that a recent application for a Lawful Development Certificate was granted for the use of the upper floor as two self-contained flats. 8. Class M states that development is eligible where it consists of change of use of a building from a use falling within class E (shops), to a use falling within class C3 (dwellinghouses). 9. Article 2 of the GPDO states that ‘building’ includes ‘any part of a building’.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision It follows that the permitted development right can apply to the rear part of the existing ground floor shop, whilst retaining the front part of the ground floor as an independent retail use. This is consistent with other appeal decisions, cited by the appellant, where Inspectors have allowed similar appeals relating to the conversion of part of a building . For these reasons I consider that the proposal before me is eligible for conversion under permitted development. 10. The proposal does not pose unacceptable risks in relation to contamination or flooding. There is no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. With regard to whether the loss of the shopping unit would have an effect on the sustainability of the area, I am satisfied that the area would not be materially affected by the change of use of this unit. Conclusion 12. For the reason given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal is permitted development and the appeal should succeed. It is not necessary to have a condition listing the approved plan, as it is listed in the first paragraph of this decision.

Page 2 · Chunk 6 Appeal Decision

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The planning permission under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the GPDO is granted subject to the statutory conditions set out at Paragraph M.2 (3) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the GPDO. No other conditions are necessary or justified.

Page 2 · Chunk 7 Paul Cooper

67-71 Laughton road , Dinnington , Rotherham, S25 2PN — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council — Paul Cooper INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶5

The Council's sole reason for refusing the application was that the proposal did not meet the requirements of Class M, but the evidence suggests this is incorrect.

Green belt
Neutral
¶10

There is no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework and the proposal does not pose unacceptable risks in relation to contamination or flooding.

Ecology and biodiversity
Neutral
¶10

There is no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework and the proposal does not pose unacceptable risks in relation to contamination or flooding.

Affordable housing
Neutral
¶11

The Inspector is satisfied that the area would not be materially affected by the change of use of this unit.

Planning obligations
For appellant
¶12

The proposal is permitted development and the appeal should succeed, as the requirements of Class M are met and no other conditions are necessary.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
NPPF 208
Moderate
Class M of the GPDO
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 September 2021 under the Open Government Licence.