Permitted Development rights Class MB - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Permitted Development rights Class MB
William Rogerson, modified 9 Years ago.
Permitted Development rights Class MB
New Member Posts: 16 Join Date: 15/01/15 Recent PostsGood Day - I am wondering if anyone has a view on the interpretation of the conditions surrounding the new, some say, dreaded Class MB as follows....
Development not permitted
MB.1. Development is not permitted by Class MB where—
(a)the site was not used solely for an agricultural use, as part of an established agricultural unit—
(i)on 20th March 2013;
(ii)if the site was not in use on that date, when it was last in use; or
(iii)if the site was brought into use after that date, for ten years before the date the development begins;
Is the view that this condition refers to the 'actual' use on the 20th March 2013 or the 'allowed' use? I have come across a situation whereby the actual use on 20/03/13 was an unlawful 'non agricultural use' and the use was removed by way of an enforcement notice, the building is now empty. This notice served to confirm that the only allowed use was agricultural. The previous use to the non agricultural use was agricultural and continued for 15+ years. All contributions appreciated.
Thank you
William
William Rogerson, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Permitted Development rights Class MB
New Member Posts: 16 Join Date: 15/01/15 Recent PostsPaul Courtine:In this kind of case, article 3(5) of the Permitted Development Order says the PD right is only available if the existing agricultural use is lawful. If the "actual" use isn't the "allowed" use, the PD right therefore usually wouldn't be available.
Thank you for that Paul - note that you say 'usually wouldn't be available' does this mean that you think that there may be a possibility that it would be available, or are you just being a little cautious? I am guessing that in reality, this situation has not yet been, legally tested....
That's just my disclaimer!
There will be many appeal decisions where the question of article 3(5) will have arisen and the principle won't be any different when applied to class MB. See for example
http://planning.croydon.gov.uk/DocOnline/103762_2.pdf (para 7)
http://services.maidstone.gov.uk/meetings/documents/s34456/Appendix%201%20for%20MA%2013%200684.pdf (para 8)
William Rogerson, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Permitted Development rights Class MB
New Member Posts: 16 Join Date: 15/01/15 Recent PostsHi Paul
Always good to have a disclaimer :) the PD clause that you refer to states;
(5) The permission granted by Schedule 2 shall not apply if—
(a)in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing building, the building operations involved in the construction of that building are unlawful;
(b)in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing use, that use is unlawful.
The example appeal cases that you provided links to (thank you) seem to relate to cases where PD rights are being claimed on unlawful activities, and I can see that the clause above deals with this issue.
The case that I am referring to in relation to PD rights and class MB is, I believe, different. Whilst the last use of the building was unlawful (non agricultural) it is not that use that is being used to enquire if, or justify that, PD rights apply. The only lawful, and accepted use of the building is agricultural, and that was the last lawful use, even thought the last known actual (& lawful) agricultural use was in 2005. The building was constructed in 1988 for agricultural use, and that 'actual' use continued until 2005.
There is a recent appeal case, where the Inspector has qritten the following statement (apologies but I don't have the appeal case reference)
There is a suggestion that the site may have been used for non-agricultural use since the appellant acquired the land in 2013. That might not matter as long as it was in agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit and used for the purposes of an agricultural trade or business before the relevant date. Whilst I saw no evidence of any current use of the building, the application contains insufficient information to enable me to conclude with any certainty that those restrictions are met...
Hope all makes sense, appreciate any further opinion and feedback - many thanks