Manchester City Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

A planning permission intended to restrict development to specified uses must express that restriction by an effective planning condition. Describing the permitted development in narrower terms does not, by itself, exclude the operation of the Use Classes Order or permitted development rights.

The planning unit is determined as a question of fact and degree. The unit of occupation is the usual starting point, but physically separate areas occupied for substantially different and unrelated purposes may constitute separate planning units.

Manchester City Council brought statutory appeals under sections 288(2) and 289(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an inspector’s decision on enforcement appeals concerning the conversion of a dwellinghouse into four commercial units.

The inspector granted deemed planning permission under section 177(5), subject to operating-hour conditions, but declined to impose conditions limiting each unit to the specified travel agency, courier-office and therapy uses. The central issue was whether the permission concerned four separate planning units or one planning unit in mixed use, and whether the description of the permitted development legally restricted future changes of use.

1. The appeals were allowed and the inspector’s decision was quashed. The inspector intended to restrict the four units to the specified businesses, but that limitation was not legally effective because it was not imposed by planning condition. The rule in I’m Your Man Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment required a substantive limitation on a planning permission to be expressed by condition.

2. Under sections 55(1) and 57(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a material change of use is development requiring planning permission unless an exception applies. Section 55(2)(f) removes from development certain changes within a Use Class. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 therefore allowed changes within the same class unless that effect was excluded by an appropriately worded condition.

3. A mixed use does not fall within a single Use Class and cannot benefit from the relevant statutory exception or permitted development rights. The planning unit must first be identified.

4. The planning unit is a question of fact and degree. Relevant considerations included separate occupation, separate leases, independent businesses, service of the enforcement notice on each occupier, and the self-contained and lockable nature of each room. Shared entrance, kitchen and bathroom facilities did not alter the conclusion that each room was a separate planning unit.

5. The inspector’s decision was ambiguous, so extrinsic material could be considered under the approach explained in Roger Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. On the evidence, each room was a separate planning unit. A change of use within one room could therefore take effect under section 55(2)(f), or through permitted development rights, despite the inspector’s ineffective descriptive limitation. The decision accordingly contained an error of law.

The judgment records statutory appeals to the High Court from a Planning Inspector’s decision made on behalf of the Secretary of State. Permission to appeal was granted on one substantive ground only. The High Court allowed the appeals and quashed the inspector’s decision.