You are on page 1of 50

Possible changes to the Use Classes Order and temporary uses provisions

On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk Documents downloaded from the www.communities.gov.uk website areCrown Copyright unless otherwise stated, in which case copyright is assigned to Queens Printer and Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office. Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: HMSOlicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk. This publication is only available online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk Alternative formats under Disability Discrimination Act (DDA):if you require this publication in an alternative format please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Publication title: Possible changes to the Use Classes Order and temporary uses provisions Consultation period: 24 January 2002 to 24 April 2002 Price: Free Summary The Planning Green Paper announced our intention to review the Use Classes Order (UCO) to ensure that it is constructed in a way which allows the maximum possible deregulation consistent with delivering planning policy objectives This consultation paper seeks your views on whether any changes are desirable to the current UCO and GPDO provisions. Order This publication is available free of charge from Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby LS23 7NB. Tel: 0870 1226 236, fax: 0870 1226 237, textphone: 0870 1207 405, email: communities@twoten.com. Please quote the product code when ordering. Delivery will be 5 to 7 days from receipt of order. A maximum quantity restriction may apply. Alternative formats under Disability Discrimination Act (DDA): if you require this publication in an alternative format (eg Braille or audio) please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk quoting the title and product code/ISBN of the publication, and your address and telephone number. Contents Part 1: Responding to this consultation paper Part 2: Introduction Part 3: Objectives Part 4: The A Use Classes Part 5: The B Use Classes Part 6: The C Use Classes Part 7: The D Use Classes Part 8 Temporary uses Part 9: Summary of questions and recommendations Part 10: Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)

Part 11: Executive Summary from research report

Part 1: Responding to this consultation paper We look forward to receiving your comments on the proposals in this consultation paper. Please send your response to Iain Clark at the address below no later than 24 April 2002: Development Control Policy Division Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Zone 4/J3 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Tel: 020 7944 3947 Fax: 020 7944 5004 E-Mail: ucoreview@communities.gsi.gov.uk Further copies of the Consultation Paper are available from: DTLR Free literature PO BOX 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 122 6236 Fax: 0870 122 6237 We may wish to make responses to this consultation paper available to Parliament and for public inspection in the Department's library. Unless you specifically state that your response, or any part of it, is confidential, we shall assume that you have no objection to this arrangement. We shall nevertheless count confidential responses in any numerical analysis.

Go to table of contents Part 2: Introduction 2.1 The Planning Green Paper (see endnote 1), published on 12 December 2001, set out the Government's proposals for reforming the planning system, making it faster, simpler and more accessible. The Green Paper announced our intention to review the Use Classes Order to ensure that it is constructed in a way which allows the maximum possible deregulation consistent with delivering planning policy objectives. 2.2 Planning permission is required for material change of use of buildings and land. However, certain uses are so similar in land-use planning terms - for example, noise, traffic generation, visual appearance, and parking - that an application for planning permission to change between them might be considered overly burdensome. In order to relieve the planning system of a large number of unnecessary applications, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 excludes from the definition of development, and hence from planning control, any change of use where both existing and proposed uses fall within one class in an Order made by the Secretary of State. 2.3 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (UCO) sets out classes of uses. The UCO provides that a move between activities within the same class is not development and therefore does not require planning permission. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (GPDO) provides further flexibility by classifying certain moves between the Use Classes as permitted development, which similarly does not require express planning permission. 2.4 Whilst the UCO may permit the change of use of a building, planning permission may still be required for associated building works. In addition, certain changes of use in Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) require English Nature's consent even though they may be permitted by the UCO. 2.5 From time to time the activities that need to be encompassed by the UCO change as the economy develops, new activities emerge and tastes change. It is therefore important to review the UCO and GPDO provisions regularly and to consider whether any changes are appropriate. 2.6 In February 2000, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) commissioned research to look at the impact of the Use Classes Order on the delivery of planning policy objectives. The research contract was let to Baker Associates. As part of their investigations, the researchers discussed with the Local Government Association and other groups the issues and concerns which they had raised. A questionnaire was sent to all district and unitary authorities in England. The researchers explored in depth the issues that emerged from the questionnaires, consultations and other representations, by examining the operation and implications in specific situations through the use of case studies. 2.7 The research report (see endnote 2) was published on 12 September 2001. The Executive Summary to this report is included at Part 11 of this consultation document. 2.8 The research report also considered the provisions of Part 4, Class B of the GPDO which provides for some activities to take place without the need for planning permission for up to 28

days of the year, or for 14 days in the case of some of the specified uses. The freedom provided by this part of the GPDO is intended to be beneficial to the community, by providing for infrequent recreational and fund-raising events to be held by such bodies as community groups and charitable organisations. There are clear benefits to planning authorities from avoiding the need for a very wide-ranging but generally harmless group of activities to be subject to planning procedures. However, in recent years there have been some concerns about the amount of activity which this provision allows, and the ability of local planning authorities to enforce the provisions. 2.9 This consultation paper seeks your views on whether any changes are desirable to the current UCO and GPDO provisions. The paper includes possible options for the future composition of the UCO and temporary uses provisions based on the Department's consideration of the research report and other representations received from interested bodies and individuals. We would welcome your comments on the options proposed, and on any alternatives you feel would be more appropriate. It would be particularly helpful to receive a wide range of views reflecting both urban and rural perspectives. 2.10 Following consultation, we will analyse the responses and consider the most appropriate way forward. If we decide to make changes, we will introduce the necessary secondary legislation to bring them into effect and will update Circular 13/87 which provides guidance on the purpose and operation of the UCO. 2.11 This consultation paper concerns England only.

Endnotes 1. Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change - available from DTLR Free literature (tel 0870 1226 236) 2. Review of the Use Classes Order and Part 4 of the GPDO (Temporary Uses) - ISBN 1 85 112506 X - available from DTLR's Publications Sales Centre (tel 01709 891 318) and on DTLR's web-site

Part 3: Objectives Overall approach 3.1 The requirement that planning permission be obtained before development can be undertaken is a regulatory mechanism. Intervention in the development process by the local planning authority is justified on the grounds that it is in the public interest. However, the UCO and GPDO are intended to be deregulatory mechanisms that work by lessening the regulatory requirements of the planning system. They work on the basis of a balance to be struck between market freedoms and the need for control of certain types of activity. By allowing such deregulation, the resources available for the operation of the planning system are able to be deployed efficiently to achieve the greatest benefit. 3.2 The UCO is permissive. It removes the need for planning permission between certain specified uses. It cannot be used to require an application for planning permission for changes between activities in different classes (or those not in a class). Whether a planning application is needed in any particular case will depend upon whether there has been any material change of use. Within these parameters, we want to ensure that the UCO serves Government policy effectively. Key principles 3.3 Our review of the Use Classes Order has been informed by one key principle which we believe should govern any change to the current composition of the Order. This is that the UCO and GPDO provisions should be constructed in a way which allows the maximum possible deregulation consistent with delivering planning policy and wider objectives, including protecting amenity. Question 1 - Do you agree that the UCO and GPDO provisions should be constructed in a way which allows the maximum possible deregulation consistent with delivering planning policy and wider objectives, including protecting amenity? Local flexibility 3.4 A well constructed set of nationally applicable rules which governs the ability to change use without planning permission is likely to be appropriate for the majority of situations. However, we believe that local planning authorities should be able to introduce even greater flexibility by being able to relax the boundaries of the GPDO provisions to facilitate changes of use between classes in order to deal with particular local circumstances. 3.5 The Planning Green Paper seeks views on whether local orders would help or hinder efficient planning. Local orders could give authorities some flexibility to relax national planning rules by extending permitted development rights locally to suit local circumstances, for example to help authorities to be proactive in promoting sustainable development, particularly in helping rural businesses adapt to changing circumstances. Subject to the wider consideration of whether local permitted development rights should be introduced, we believe that the same approach should be applied to changes of use between classes. However, this

will require primary legislation, so may not be achievable in the short term. Question 2 - Do you agree that local authorities should be able to relax the need for permission for changes of use in certain specified areas? Question 3 - Do you believe that this can be done through local orders as set out in the Planning Green Paper? Restricting Changes of Use 3.6 Circular 13/87 discourages the use of planning conditions to limit the uses into which a building could change within its class, since the widespread use of conditions would negate the certainty and freedom from detailed control envisaged by the UCO. We believe that the use of conditions should continue to be discouraged. However, we recognise that, in exceptional circumstances, the use of conditions might be appropriate to address significant local problems where there is a clear justification for doing so. In order to ensure that the use of conditions is limited to exceptional circumstances, we propose that conditions should only be used where an authority's local plan (or whatever might succeed this as a result of measures proposed in the Planning Green Paper) sets out appropriate policy establishing where such conditions would be applied. Question 4 - Do you agree that local authorities should be able to limit the scope for changes of use by the use of conditions only in exceptional circumstances? Question 5 - Do you agree that this should be limited to circumstances which have been set out in an authority's local plan? 3.7 In addition to the use of planning conditions, local planning authorities can remove specified permitted development rights by means of a direction under Article 4 of the General Permitted Development Order. An Article 4 direction cannot change the composition of the Use Classes Order, but can be used to remove the ability to change between classes. Where a local planning authority wishes to issue an Article 4 direction, it will need to seek the agreement of the Secretary of State (through the relevant Government Office for the Region). It may also be liable to pay compensation where a subsequent application for planning permission is refused or granted subject to conditions.

Part 4: The A Use Classes

Table 1 - Current provision Use Class A1 Shops Use Whether change permitted No change of use without permission, except to A1 plus single flat

Sale of goods and cold food, retail warehouses, hairdressers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, domestic hire shops, funeral directors, dry cleaners Professional (excluding health and Change to A1 permitted A2 medical services) and financial only if there is a ground floor Financial and services (banks and building display window professional societies); other services services appropriate in a shopping area where the services are provided principally to visiting members of the public Sale of food and drink for Change to A1 or A2 A3 consumption on premises, eg in permitted Food and drink restaurants, pubs, cafes and wine bars; shops for sale of hot food to be taken away Shops selling or displaying motor Change to A1 permitted Sui Generis vehicles for sale Launderettes, taxi businesses, car No change of use permitted hire businesses, filling stations, scrapyards 4.1 Activities currently within the A Use Classes attracted most comment and concern during the research project. It is therefore not surprising that it is to this Class that the researchers recommended the greatest amount of change.

Objectives 4.2 The Government's planning policy objectives relevant to these uses are: to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres - which includes city, town and district centres; and to safeguard and strengthen existing local centres, in both urban and rural areas, which offer a range of everyday community, shopping and employment opportunities. Concerns about the current uses within the A Class

Public houses and bars 4.3 The greatest concern found by the researchers (reported by 85 per cent of respondents to their survey) and reported to the Department by concerned individuals and groups is with the A3 food and drink Use Class. This frequently relates to noise, particularly from bars. Problems of noise stem from the inadequate sound insulation; the playing of loud music to attract custom which is exacerbated by opening of windows and shop fronts, and also the spilling of customers onto the pavements. A second major concern is an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour, including people fouling and urinating in doorways, vomiting in the street, as well as other general rowdiness. A third is the hours of operation, which, although also the subject of licensing control, affect the degree of disturbance caused. 4.4 There are also other environmental concerns. Premises can be hard to service with refuse and cleansing vehicles leading to an increase in the amount of rubbish on the streets. There can also be problems with noise and air quality relating to the smells and fumes from ducts and ventilation shafts in food establishments. 4.5 A further concern is the proliferation of larger pubs and bars, with many new style bar operations being able to accommodate often more than 500 patrons. Many of these 'superpubs' are often located very closely to one another. The result of these concentrations of large bars and pubs is noise emanating from the premises and from clients departing in the early hours of the morning and behaving in an anti-social manner. 4.6 It is important that the planning system is not used as a means of duplicating controls exercised by other control mechanisms. The licensing regime and local authority environmental health controls exist to deal with many of the behavioural difficulties sometimes associated with the consumption of alcohol. 4.7 In particular, on 1 December 2001, Section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 came into force. This creates new police powers to close down instantly for up to 24 hours disorderly and excessively noisy on-licensed premises, which includes pubs, nightclubs, bars, wine-bars, restaurants and hotels. The Act also introduced new powers for the police or the local authorities to close unlicensed drinking dens which have a significant impact on crime and disorder in the local vicinity between the hours of 3.00am and 8.00am. 4.8 The Home Office issued a White Paper in 2000 on proposals to deregulate licensing laws and the Government is committed to introducing a draft Alcohol and Entertainment Bill as soon as Parliamentary time permits. The proposals in the White Paper would enable a pub or licensed premises to extend its opening hours on application for a premises license. Concern has been expressed that this relaxation could have a negative affect on amenity both in town centres and in residential areas, through increased noise, rowdiness and litter. However, under the current proposals, local authorities will need to consider the social implications before agreeing any such extension of opening hours. In addition, it should be noted that the proposals to introduce more flexible drinking hours were welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers because fixed artificially early closing times actively cause crime and disorder. For example, in the Isle of Man, permitted licensing hours were abolished in July 2001. Early police estimates indicate a drop in alcohol-related crime of 40 per cent. Furthermore, local people have praised the scheme because it has ended the concentration of people on the

streets at closing time which caused a concentration of noise and disturbance. Fast-food takeaways 4.9 A major issue concerning the Use Classes Order is the conversion of public houses into fast-food restaurants under the A3 class. Under the current structure, pubs and restaurants come under the same classification. This allows fast-food chains to buy former pubs and convert them into fast-food restaurants without the need for express planning permission. 4.10 Pubs in peripheral locations are attractive to fast-food developers as they usually have large car parks and are surrounded by open space needed to develop a drive-through facility. Many of the premises taken up by fast-food operators to date have been ones where the pub has closed down or been sold by the breweries on the basis that they are no longer viable. However, this is not always the case. 4.11 In addition to concerns about the loss of a local facility, many local residents have concerns over the impacts that a fast-food takeaway will have with regard to traffic, in particular, for noise, safety and air pollution. There are provisions within the environmental health legislation for dealing with the nuisance that can arise from cooking smells and extractor fan noise. However, the pattern of activity arising from takeaways can involve late night use and the congregation of groups of people in the vicinity, not dissimilar in some respects to public houses and clubs. Unlike these uses though there are no licensing provisions to assist in the management of the use of the premises, or to place any onus on the operators to influence the behaviour of customers. In addition, the car traffic that can be generated by takeaways may be significant, with trips at unsociable hours and the disturbance associated with short term on-street parking. Sandwich shops 4.12 In recent years there have been dramatic changes in the food and drink industry, which has seen an increase in the popularity of sandwich shops, coffee shops, juicebars and soup bars. These establishments have grown around shopping and transport links and operators are continuing to look to purchase sites in central locations. Such establishments usually fall under Use Class A1 (Shops). However, some of these establishments no longer resemble traditional shops and may be more like cafs, requiring planning permission for a change of use to Class A3. There are concerns that it is not always clear at what point a change of use happens between Class A1 and A3. 4.13 Sandwich shops (etc) can contribute positively to the shopping economy and create few or no amenity problems. However, some authorities have raised concerns over the loss of former retail shops in the high street, especially to new coffee shops. This is mainly due to the growth in numbers of sandwich shops and coffee shops and the size of the units (in particular where a former large retail unit has been lost). Warehouse clubs 4.14 Warehouse clubs commonly offer a narrow selection of products within a wide range of product categories at wholesale prices. They tend to attract small businesses but are also available to members of the public who subscribe to an annual membership. There has been

uncertainty in the past regarding warehouse clubs and where they fit within the UCO. In particular, the classification of warehouse clubs in A1 has been held to be contentious because the use is not wholly available to "visiting members of the public" as entry is limited to members only. Indeed, UK case law (see endnote 3) has endorsed the view that warehouse clubs are not a UCO class A1 "shop", but are in fact sui generis and would therefore require planning permission to change to A1. Internet shops/cafs 4.15 Internet shops/cafs are a type of activity that has emerged relatively recently, and the question of how this new use should be dealt with by the UCO and GPDO has been raised by a number of planning authorities. Such establishments provide benefit to the community (in rural as well as urban areas) in ensuring that everyone has access to the Internet, and as such the Government supports their introduction. However, representatives of the industry have reported delays and frustration in dealing with planning authorities uncertain or inconsistent in their approach to the use of property for the sale of access to internet services. 4.16 These facilities vary considerably, from something akin to a high street financial services outlet (that is, a use providing a service to visiting members of the public and characterised by desks and computer terminals) to something more like a caf (that is, a place for food and drink, with sofas and coffee tables, but with some computers). Most are small in scale and often ancillary to the main use of the premises, but a few are large-scale, single-purpose operations which do not readily fit into the current UCO. Whilst the number of such facilities is not particularly significant, there is a need to clarify the way that internet shops/cafs should be dealt with under the UCO. Motor sales 4.17 Movement of activity from a car showroom to A1 retail is currently permitted by the GPDO. Given the number of car showrooms in out of town locations, well placed for access by car, there was a concern that this flexibility allowed the development of out-of-town shopping establishments with the potential for supermarkets to buy up former car showrooms.

Options for change Option 1 4.18 The researchers recommended that, subject to a number of limitations, there could be scope for introducing greater flexibility within the A use classes by combining the current A1, A2 and A3 classes to form a single new "mixed retail" uses Class. They made this recommendation based on the principle that the mix of uses within a centre should be primarily determined by the market. They suggested that the inclusion of a range of activities within this mixed retail use - shops, post offices, small cafs/bars, financial services, banks and travel agents - would maximise the opportunities for the full use of premises. 4.19 However, the researchers also recommended that control should be maintained over certain uses which were likely to give rise to the greater impacts. In particular, they recommended the introduction of a maximum size threshold of 100 square metres of gross

lettable area (GLA) for changes into or out of the new "mixed retail" uses class for the different activities that were formerly within the A3 Use Class (restaurants, pubs, cafes etc). Below this threshold, such establishments could be part of the new "mixed retail" use. 4.20 Above the size threshold, the researchers recommended that separate use classes should be set for establishments where the primary purpose was the sale and consumption of alcoholic drink, and establishments for the sale of food and drink primarily for consumption on the premises. Establishments for the sale of hot food to be taken away should be sui generis. 4.21 The researchers further recommended that: internet shops/cafs where the primary purpose is the sale of access to internet services should be within the new "mixed retail" use, or if they are above the size threshold and have as a primary purpose the consumption of food on the premises or the consumption of alcohol on the premises, to be classified according to their primary purpose; sandwich shops and coffee shops should be part of the new "mixed retail" use if they are below the size threshold and otherwise to be classified with uses where the primary purpose is the consumption of food on the premises; the provision for motor sales to change to shops as permitted development should be removed; and warehouse clubs should be included within the 'Aa' mixed retail class.

4.22 The researchers proposals would result in a new A Use Class as set out in table 2.

Table 2 - Option 1 for "A" Use Classes Use Class Aa 'Mixed Retail' Uses Whether change permitted Sale or provision of goods and services to Change to Aa plus visiting members of the public including: single flat allowed sale of goods and cold food, including through warehouse clubs; financial and professional services (including the sale of access to internet services), excluding health and medical services; and sale of food and drink for consumption on premises, including sandwich shops and coffee shops, subject to a maximum GLA of 100 sq m Ab Restaurants and Sale of food and drink primarily for consumption on the premises, but Change to Aa allowed Use

including sandwich shops and coffee shops, where the GLA of the enclosed floorspace is greater than 100sq m Sale of drink and food for consumption on Change to Aa and Ac Ab allowed Public Houses, Bars premises where the primary purpose is the sale and consumption of alcoholic and Nightclubs drink, where the GLA of the enclosed floorspace is greater than 100sq m Shops for the sale of hot food to be taken Change to Aa and Sui generis away (including drive-through restaurants) Ab allowed Shops selling or displaying motor vehicles No change of use for sale; launderettes, taxi businesses, car allowed hire businesses, filling stations, scrapyards 4.23 The issue of nightclubs, which the researchers recommended should be part of the proposed class Ac, is considered in Part 7. Cafes 4.24 The researchers did not carry out any research into the effect of setting the size threshold at 100sq m GLA. The Government is considering this issue further and would welcome your views on whether you think such a threshold is appropriate. Option 2 4.25 An alternative option, based on that recommended by the researchers, would be to merge use classes A1 and A2 to form a new "mixed retail" use, whilst excluding A3 uses entirely from this new class. This would increase flexibility to change between shops and other services for visiting members of the public, but would ensure that local planning authorities could retain control over all establishments for eating and drinking (ie not just those over 100 sq m GLA). 4.26 In this and subsequent options, warehouse clubs have been classified as sui generis as their position in the "mixed retail" class could lead to inappropriate out-of-town shopping. Table 3 - Option 2 for "A" Use Classes Whether change permitted Sale or provision of goods and services Change to Aa Aa to visiting members of the public, plus single flat 'Mixed allowed Retail' Uses including: sale of goods and cold food; and financial and professional services (including the sale of access to internet services), excluding health and medical services Ab Sale of food and drink primarily for Change to Aa Use Class Use

Restaurants consumption on the premises, but and Cafes including sandwich shops and coffee shops Sale of drink and food for consumption Ac on premises where the primary purpose Public Houses and is the sale and consumption of alcoholic drink Bars Sui generis Shops for the sale of hot food to be taken away (including drive-through restaurants) Shops selling or displaying motor vehicles for sale; launderettes, warehouse clubs, taxi businesses, car hire businesses, filling stations, scrapyards Option 3

allowed

Change to Aa and Ab allowed Change to Aa and Ab allowed No change of use allowed

4.27 A further option, based on option 2, would be to include premises for the sale of food and drink primarily for consumption on the premises, within the new "mixed retail" use, whilst excluding from this new class premises where the primary purpose is the sale and consumption of alcoholic drink. This would increase flexibility still further, by the ability to change from, for example, a shop to a caf, but would ensure that local planning authorities could retain control over pubs and bars which could have significant impacts on amenity. Table 4 - Option 3 for "A" Use Classes Use Class Use Whether change permitted Change to Aa plus single flat allowed

Sale or provision of goods and Aa 'Mixed Retail' services to visiting members of the Uses (including public, including: Restaurants and Cafes) sale of goods and cold food; and financial and professional services (including the sale of access to internet services), excluding health and medical services sale of food and drink primarily for consumption on the premises Ab Public Houses and Bars

Sale of drink and food for Change to consumption on premises where Aa allowed the primary purpose is the sale and

Sui generis

consumption of alcoholic drink Shops for the sale of hot food to be taken away (including drive-through restaurants) Shops selling or displaying motor vehicles for sale; launderettes, warehouse clubs, taxi businesses, car hire businesses, filling stations, scrapyards

Change to Aa allowed

No change of use allowed

Option 4 4.28 Options 2 and 3 retained the researchers proposed split of A3 into premises where the primary use is for food and drink and premises where the primary use is for the sale of alcohol. Option 4, would keep A3 as it currently is (but excluding take-aways), and would allow establishments to change between restaurants, cafs, pubs, and bars without the need for planning permission. Table 5 - Option 4 for "A" Use Classes Use Class Aa 'Mixed Retail' Uses Use Whether change permitted

Sale or provision of goods and services to visiting members of the public including: Change to Aa plus single flat allowed sale of goods and cold food; and financial and professional services (including the sale of access to internet services) excluding health and medical services Sale of food and drink (including alcohol) primarily for consumption on the premises, including sandwich shops and coffee shops Shops for the sale of hot food to be taken away (including drive-through restaurants) Shops selling or displaying motor vehicles for sale; launderettes, warehouse clubs, Taxi businesses, car hire businesses, filling stations, scrapyards Change to Aa allowed

Ab Food and drink Sui generis

Change to Aa and Ab allowed No change of use allowed

Option 5 4.29 In options 2, 3 and 4, hot food takeaways are considered to be sui generis. Option 5, would therefore be to adopt option 2, 3, or 4, but with the sale of hot food to be included within the sale of food class. This would avoid difficulties of definition (for example where a fast-food restaurant includes eat-in and take-away facilities in equal amounts), but would not allow

control over the potential adverse effects of the take-away trade. Question 6 - Which option for Use Class A do you think would most meet the objectives set out at paragraph 4.2 with regard both to town and city centres and to local/neighbourhood centres? Would you prefer to leave Use Class A as it currently is (the "do nothing" option)? Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in this paper? Question 7 - Why do you prefer your chosen option? Question 8 - If a size threshold were introduced in the way recommended by the researchers, do you think that 100sq m GLA would be appropriate? In your view, what would be the effect of setting such a threshold on the mix of uses in: a) town and city centres? and
b) local/neighbourhood centres?

Endnotes 3. R v Thurrock Borough Council and others, ex parte Tesco Stores Ltd and others - October 1993.

Part 5: The B Use Classes Table 6 - Current provision Use Class Use Whether change permitted Change to B8 (only up to 235 m2 of floor space) permitted

B1 Business

a Offices other than financial and professional services providing for the visiting members of the public b Research and development c Other industrial processes
appropriate in a residential area

B2 General industrial

General industry, not within B1

Storage or distribution centres B8 Storage or distribution Sui Generis Work registerable under Alkali etc, Works Regulation Act Objectives

Change to B1 or B8 (only up to 235 m2 of floor space) Change to B1 (only up to 235 m2 of floor space) permitted No change of use permitted

5.1 The Government's planning policy objectives relevant to these uses are generally to locate development so as: to promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight; to promote accessibility to jobs by public transport, walking and cycling; and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

5.2 More specifically for the different elements of the B use class the Government is seeking: Offices: to focus office development in city, town and district centres and near to major urban public transport interchanges; Research & Development: to facilitate the development of clusters of high-technology, knowledge-driven companies; Industry: to ensure that there is a supply of sites with a choice of means of access; and Distribution: to promote sustainable distribution, including where feasible, the movement of freight by rail or water by:

o locating distribution and warehousing facilities, particularly of bulky goods, away from congested central areas and residential areas and ensure adequate access to trunk roads; and o promoting opportunities for freight generating development to be served by rail or waterways by identifying and protecting sites adjacent or close to such infrastructure.

Concerns about the current uses within the B Class Class B1 5.3 The current B1 Use Class brings together into a single class a number of uses which it was considered would be capable of being undertaken "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", although this definition took no account of scale, traffic generation or parking problems. It provides considerable flexibility for development in an area where it can be difficult to differentiate between uses. For example, most R&D and light industrial premises are likely to have ancillary office accommodation, and it is quite possible for all three uses to take place within the same building. 5.4 This flexibility was introduced following a review of the Use Classes Order in 1987 as a deregulatory measure. However, it has been suggested that the current composition of the B1 use class can act against our policy of promoting office development in town centres where there is readily accessible public transport infrastructure since it does not distinguish office uses from research and development and light industry. There is a concern that this could encourage developers who receive planning permission for a science park, for example, to use that planning permission instead for office accommodation, which might attract higher rents. However, it could also be argued that the very fact that a science park can turn into office accommodation has led to more science parks being developed than would otherwise have been the case, since the developer has the reassurance that he could subsequently use the site for offices if the science park venture was not successful. The B2 and B8 Use Classes 5.5 Property managers with a significant portfolio of industrial and storage space suggested, in the researchers' survey, that the buildings in the storage and distribution Use Class (B8) in practice divided into two main types. The first of these comprised buildings that were similar to general industrial sheds and which occurred on most industrial estates (and so were similar to B2 use). The second type could be described as 'high-bay distribution'. These buildings were often designed, built and located for the express purpose of handling a very large throughput using the most advanced and high-capacity storage, access and handling systems. It has been suggested that due to the similarity in the use of space and impact of certain types of class B2 use, and part of the range of activity encountered within the B8 use class, there was scope for greater flexibility in the use of space by merging all or parts of these categories of use. 5.6 An alternative view, however, is that B8 uses may have very specific locational

requirements, such as sites next to railway sidings, wharves or near motorway junctions and that such sites therefore need to be reserved or safeguarded for such uses. Changes from B1 & B2 to B8 5.7 The researchers found that there were some problems emanating from the ability to change from B1 and B2 to B8. These included concerns over increases in traffic movements (should the total storage area increase) and the loss of jobs (as B8 uses were generally less employment intensive). Flexibility to change within the B Class 5.8 Under the current composition, permitted development rights allow changes between B1 and B8 (both to and from) and from B2 to B8, up to 235 m2 of floor space. This flexibility has been in existence for many years and has not provoked any strong comments. However, the researchers heard evidence that subdivision of units had been used as a means of overcoming area constraints, enabling incremental change to take place. Cumulatively, this could amount to a significant degree of change and the impacts much more pronounced. Options for change 5.9 Paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 considered different views about the current composition of the B1 Use Class. Before reaching any decisions on this issue, we would welcome your views on whether you think that allowing more use to be made of the existing sub-divisions of the B1 Use Class (for example by splitting them into separate use classes) would help or hinder our policy objectives as set out in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2. We would, in particular, like to hear of any examples of where the current composition of the B1 Use Class has had a direct affect (either desirable or undesirable) on the promotion of our policy objectives. 5.10 In advance of hearing your views on the above, we have only set out two options here. The first is the option recommended by the researchers. The second is a "do nothing" option. Option 1 5.11 The researchers recommended that those uses which could be categorised as primarily involving the production of artefacts (currently Class B1(c)) should be separated from those uses categorised by the primary purposes of research and development (Class B1(b)) or use as offices (Class B1(a)), which should remain together. They also recommended that "other industrial processes appropriate in a residential area" should be renamed as "clean production". 5.12 As a consequence of this change, the researchers recommended that provision for general industrial space (Class B2) to move without planning control should be limited to a move to clean production use only (Class B1(c)). 5.13 The researchers noted that there were some potential drawbacks to these recommendations. In particular, there would be a loss of some of the automatic flexibility from which the users of some Class B1 space currently benefit. However, the researchers felt that this was not an undue restriction. New premises could be given a planning permission that

embraces office, research and development and light industrial use where the location was suitable, and where the policy context based on a full range of economic and social as well as environmental considerations was supportive. 5.14 The researchers considered that the promotion of a science park rather than a general business park ought to be achieved through carefully specified and justified allocations within development plans, to be implemented through development briefs and section 106 agreements. The future of section 106 agreements , or planning obligations, is the subject of a separate consultation document "Reforming Planning Obligations" published on 19 December 2001. A copy of the document is available from DTLR Free literature (tel 0870 1226 236) and on DTLR's website at www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk 5.15 Table 7 illustrates the researchers recommended option. Table 7 - Option 1 for "B" Use Classes Use Class Ba Offices and R&D Bb Clean productio n B2 General productio n B8 Storage and distributi on Sui Generis Option 2 Use Offices, other than financial and professional services providing for the visiting members of the public. Research and development Clean production processes Whether change permitted Change to B8 (only up to 235 m2 of floor space) permitted Change to B8 (only up to 235 m2 of floor space) permitted Change to Bb or B8 (B8 only up to 235 m2 of floor space) permitted Change to Ba and Bb (only up to 235 m2 of floor space) permitted

General production processes

Storage and distribution

Work registerable under Alkali etc, Works Regulation Act

No change of use permitted

5.16 Option 2 would be to leave Use Class B as it currently is. The advantage of such an approach would be to retain the current flexibility and simplicity of the existing B1 Use Class. It has been argued that maintaining the B1 Use class would prevent the need for difficult decisions on which use (office, clean production or research processes) was primary in any particular site or building, and which was ancillary, particularly given that these uses could fluctuate naturally over time. However, this might have implications for meeting the planning policy objectives set out in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 above. Question 9 - Do you think that allowing more use to be made of the existing sub-divisions of the B1 Use Class (for example by splitting them into separate use classes) would help or hinder our policy

objectives as set out in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2? It would be helpful if you could illustrate your answer with examples of where the current composition of the B1 Use Class has had a direct affect (either desirable or undesirable) on the promotion of our policy objectives. Question 10 - Do you think that either of the options set out above for Use Class B would meet the objectives set out at paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2? Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in this paper? Question 11 - Why do you prefer your chosen option?

Part 6: The C Use Classes Table 8 - Current provision Use Class C1 Hotels Use Whether change permitted No change of use permitted No change of use permitted

Hotels, boarding and guest houses, provided that care is not provided Residential accommodation for C2 provision of care (eg old age Residential homes); residential schools institutions and colleges and training centres; hospitals and nursing homes Dwellinghouses for individuals, C3 Dwellinghous families and up to six individuals living as a single es household Sui Generis Hostels

Subdivision of dwellinghouses into two or more dwelling houses not permitted No change of use permitted

Objectives 6.1 The Government's main planning policy objective relevant to these uses is that: the Government intends that everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home. Its aim is to widen housing opportunity and choice, and secure a better mix in the size and type of housing than is currently available, including for those in need of affordable and special needs housing. Concerns about the current uses within the C Class Definition of a hotel and a hostel 6.2 Concern has been expressed about the lack of clarity over the precise definition of a hotel and a hostel, making it difficult to differentiate between the two. Hostels have been treated as sui generis since 1994. This was initially introduced in order to help prevent the erosion of the character of traditional holiday resorts. In more recent years, the definition of a hostel has come into question where local planning authorities have sought to make provision for refugees. Hostels also provide an important source of affordable housing for young employees and students and their loss to tourist accommodation would be inappropriate. Residential institutions 6.3 It has been suggested that the definition of C2 use is too wide, encompassing uses as

diverse as care homes for those with special needs, nursing homes for the elderly, and halls of residence. These could have quite different impacts in terms of noise, transport and general levels of activity. There has also been the suggestion that this allows inappropriate development in residential areas. Houses in multiple occupancy 6.4 The Department has received a large number of representations about housing in multiple occupancy, and in particular student housing. Some people have sought additional planning controls as they argue that the occupation of a house by six students gives rise to different impacts from the occupation by a family. This can include impacts on noise, traffic, parking and the visual appearance of the building. People have also expressed concern about the effect on the character of an area where a large number of dwelling houses are occupied by students. This stems in part from the way the houses are maintained and managed by the landlord and in part from the behaviour of the occupants, neither of which are subject to planning control. Homes for care in the community patients 6.5 Another concern with the C3 class over the last decade has been the practice of some local authorities buying up property for housing care in the community patients. Many local people have objected that this has affected the amenity of their area. Short-term housing 6.6 Another issue that has arisen regarding use class C is the potential for loss of permanent homes to the provision of short-term lets for business or other visitors, including aparthotels and serviced accommodation through to time-share units. Developers have turned many flats into luxury temporary accommodation in the London area. The Court of Appeal recently found in a case concerning flats overlooking Hyde Park that this change of use did not constitute development under the C use class (see endnote 4). Some local planning authorities have introduced local policies to try to address this problem. In particular, Westminster's Unitary Development Plan says that "planning permission will not be granted for the use of housing as temporary sleeping accommodation. The Council will attach conditions to grants of planning permission for new or converted housing to prevent the use of housing for this purpose".

Options for change 6.7 The researchers did not make any recommendations for changes to the C Use Classes. Their reasons for not doing so were in part confirmation that the UCO and GPDO work reasonably well, and in part a belief that where there were concerns raised over the construction and definition of the UCO and GPDO, there was not an alternative that would clearly be better. 6.8 This paper does not suggest any alternative options for the C use classes as it is unlikely that a change in the composition of Class C would help to resolve the concerns mentioned above. As set out in part 3, local planning authorities can already introduce local policies for using planning conditions in exceptional circumstances and where there is a clear justification

for doing so.. We would, however, welcome your thoughts on this. Question 12 - Do you consider that a change to the C Use class would better meet the objectives set out in paragraph 6.1 above? Question 13 - If yes, what would you recommend and what do you consider would be the benefits? Endnotes 4. Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, civil division 26th January 2000

Part 7: The D Use Classes Table 9 - Current provision Use Class Whether change permitted Clinics, health centres, crches, day No change nurseries, day centres, consulting rooms of use (not attached to doctor's house); museums, permitted libraries, art galleries, public and exhibition halls; non-residential schools, colleges and other educational centres; public worship or religious instruction Cinemas, dance and concert halls; No change swimming pools, skating rinks, gymnasiums; of use other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure permitted uses, bingo halls, casinos Theatres, amusement arcades and centres, No change fun fairs of use permitted Use

D1 Nonresidential institutions

D2 Assembly and leisure Sui Generis

Objectives 7.1 The Government's planning policy objectives relevant to these uses are: To focus land uses which are major generators of travel demand in city, town, district and local centres, the type of centre it goes into depending on the nature and scale of the use and the catchment served. City and town centres will be most appropriate for those uses serving large catchments, such as museums, central libraries, art galleries, public and exhibition halls, cinemas, concert halls, theatres and casinos. District and local centres will be most appropriate for those uses serving a more local catchment, such as clinics, health centres, day centres, doctor's consulting rooms, branch libraries and bingo. Some uses may be appropriate in either type of centre, such as swimming pools, gymnasiums and amusement arcades. Concerns about the current uses within the D Class Breadth of Classes D1 and D2 7.2 Concern has been expressed about the breadth of Classes D1 and D2. These Use Classes can be seen as "default" categories into which uses are placed that are not specific to any other Class, rather than them being similar in nature and impact. The operators of buildings in these uses often require purpose-built buildings, and, until PPG6 encouraged their

location in existing centres, those promoting leisure uses in particular tended to seek sites on retail warehouse parks or in edge-of-town locations with high car access and plenty of parking. Since PPG6 was issued in 1996, planning policy encourages these uses to locate in appropriate types of centres. Nightclubs 7.3 The part of the D Use Classes that has caused the most concern is the inclusion within Class D2 of 'dance halls'. The common concern was with nightclubs, which might come within Class D2, within Class A3, or could be sui generis. The researchers found this to be a difficult area, not least because dance halls could include not only nightclubs, but everything and everybody from tea dances to lap dancers. In addition, different uses could take place in different parts of the same building under the same management, and different uses could take place at different times of the day. Potential loss of cinemas 7.4 Concern has been expressed through the survey at the potential for the loss of cinema facilities to other uses in D2. The researchers found that in most towns, more traditional cinemas had closed in town centres and large multiplex cinemas had opened, often in out-oftown locations. The researchers felt that this was the result of consumer preference and the grant of planning permissions for modern, purpose-built facilities. Theatres 7.5 A number of people have expressed surprise that theatres are classified as sui generis and not included in the same Class as cinemas. This classification was made following the 1987 review. It was introduced because of the special protection promoted by the Theatres Trust Act 1976 and the consequent requirement in the General Development Order for consultation with the Theatres Trust before granting planning permission on land which includes a theatre. The Theatres Trust is also a statutory consultee for development involving any land on which there is a theatre. However, as set out in the Planning Green Paper, we propose to reduce the number of statutory consultees so that only those bodies whose advice has health and safety implications or which operate another parallel consent regime (such as listed building, playing field or environmental consents) will be given statutory consultee status. Gambling premises 7.6 The Government is currently considering comments from interested bodies and members of the public on the report of the Gambling Review Body, which it published in July (CM5206). The report recommended that gambling-specific premises (such as betting shops and casinos) should be subject to a new system of licensing by local authorities, to run parallel to regulation by a proposed new Gambling Commission. It has been suggested that a separate use class could be set up for premises whose primary purpose is gambling, or alternatively that all gambling-specific premises should be sui generis. However, a separate use would only be justified if there were well defined land use planning reasons for separating gambling premises from other leisure uses. The Government is still considering options and no decisions have yet been reached.

Options for change Option 1 7.7 The only change proposed by the researchers to the current composition of the D Use Class is that nightclubs above 100 square metres of gross lettable area should be specifically included in the A use class for premises where the primary purpose is the sale and consumption of alcoholic drink. Clearly this option will be dependent upon what is decided for the treatment of pubs and bars in the A Use Class. Option 2 7.8 In response to the research report, it has been suggested that nightclubs are no more similar to traditional pubs than they are to other dance halls. Option 2 therefore proposes that nightclubs should be in a Class of their own. This could come either under the D Class (where change of use to D2 Uses could be permitted) or under the A Class (where change of use to pubs, restaurants or mixed retail use could be permitted). We would welcome your views on which Class would be most suitable. Option 3 7.9 It has been suggested that since the uses in Class D are all so disparate, there is no benefit to be gained in distinguishing between D1 and D2 use. For example, it has been suggested that places of worship might have very similar patterns of visitors to cinemas and concert halls. Option 3 therefore creates just one assembly and leisure class. Table 10 illustrates this option Table 10 - Option 3 for "D" Use Classes Whether change permitted Clinics, health centres, crches, day nurseries, No D1 Assembl day centres, consulting rooms (not attached to change of doctor's house); museums, libraries, art use y and galleries, public and exhibition halls; nonpermitted leisure residential schools, colleges and other educational centres; public worship or religious instruction; cinemas, dance and concert halls; swimming pools, skating rinks, gymnasiums; other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure uses, bingo halls, casinos Theatres, amusement arcades and centres, No Sui change of Generis fun fairs use permitted Question 14 - Which option for Use Class D do you think would Use Class Use

most meet the objectives set out in paragraph 7.1? Would you prefer to leave Use Class D as it currently is (the "do nothing" option)? Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in this paper? Question 15 - Why do you prefer your chosen option? Question 16 - What treatment do you prefer for nightclubs? Why do you prefer your chosen option?

Go to table of contents Part 8 Temporary uses 8.1 Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 permits the temporary use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year (although some purposes are restricted to no more than 14 days in total) and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of that use, unless: the land in question is a building or is within the curtlilage of a building the use of the land is for a caravan site the land is, or is within, a site of special scientific interest and the use of the land is for: o (i) motor sports o (ii) clay pigeon shooting or o (iii) any war game (see endnote 5), or the use of the land is for the display of an advertisement

8.2 The following temporary uses are restricted to no more than 14 days: the holding of a market, or motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed

Objectives 8.3 The provision for temporary uses without the need for planning permission is intended to be beneficial to the community, by providing for infrequent recreational and fund raising events to be held. In particular, the temporary use provisions can be of great benefit to the rural economy, for example by allowing farmers markets and similar events to take place. There are clear benefits to planning authorities from avoiding the need for a very wide ranging but generally harmless (by their nature, and/or by being intermittent or infrequent) group of activities to be subject to planning procedures. 8.4 The provisions in the GPDO do, however, contain some quite specific exceptions to the general freedoms provided. This reflects particular types of impact that might arise, and the types of location that might be affected, for which the general freedom is not seen as being appropriate. Concerns about the current temporary uses provisions

Car boot sale and weekend markets 8.5 The principal concern arising from the temporary use provisions is with car boot sale and weekend markets (see endnote 6). If operators are inclined to hold markets on more days in a year than provided for in the GPDO there are practical difficulties in enforcing the provisions. Monitoring the activity, and distinguishing between the landowner, the operators and vendors to establish the identity of the responsible persons are onerous tasks. 8.6 In some cases the problems are exacerbated by the operator having more than one site in the same general location, for example with sites on different sides of the same village or even of the same road. By this device the same operator can operate a similar market to attract customers from the same catchment area every weekend of the year. 8.7 Traffic is the most frequently reported problem with localised congestion, danger to other road users and pedestrians, and inconvenience to residents through parking and noise all arising in some cases. Other concerns include considerable disturbance to local residents arising from the hours of working, litter, inadequate on-site facilities and the detrimental visual impact of these events in the countryside. 8.8 The holding of markets in some towns is a privilege granted by royal charter. Where charter markets exist, the laws relating to these have been used to limit locations where markets can take place, and the days on which they can be held. A market cannot be held on the same day as a charter market within 6 2/3 miles of the site of the charter market. This provision, though it is used, is insufficient to deal with the issue of weekend markets as far as those authorities with charter markets are concerned, because another day will be available, and this distance has little significance for car users. Subject to the outcome of this review of temporary uses, the Government will consider whether the charter market provisions continue to serve any useful purpose. Motor-Sports 8.9 The second most common problem is the inclusion of motor sports, including activities such as motor cycling scrambling, stock-car racing and car racing. The primary objection to these was the noise they create. These activities can be seasonal and take place in the middle of summer so local residents could be subjected to noise for several weekends running. Clay-pigeon Shooting 8.10 Concern has also been raised about the noise this activity created, which can carry for up to three to four miles away. Options for change Option 1 8.11 Option 1 is to retain the current temporary use provisions. Local planning authorities can already remove specified permitted development rights by means of a direction under Article 4 of the General Permitted Development Order. Under an Article 4 direction, the removal of permitted development rights can be tailored to the particular needs of a site or area and can

therefore be kept to a necessary minimum. 8.12 However, there are difficulties in adopting this approach. Most significantly, there may be an ongoing liability on the local planning authority to pay compensation where a subsequent application for planning permission is refused or granted subject to conditions. If Government amends the General Permitted Development Order to remove certain permitted development rights (which would be the case under the following options) compensation may still be payable, but it is limited to the first twelve months after the change is introduced. Option 2 8.13 The researchers acknowledged that there was a great deal of activity that took advantage of the permitted development rights which causes no harm to issues of acknowledged planning importance and indeed which might be desirable. However, having considered a range of options, the researchers concluded that only the complete removal of temporary use provisions would really address the problems adequately. They therefore recommended that the temporary use provisions be removed for all temporary uses currently under Class B of Part 4 of the GPDO, and be replaced with a requirement that events organisers seek planning permission for a site on which they might wish to hold activities from time to time. Option 3 8.14 In order to address the specific problems identified, but to retain the benefits of temporary use provisions, and alternative option would be to remove permitted development rights for temporary markets, all motor sports, and clay pigeon shooting. 8.15 This option would provide local planning authorities with the opportunity to consider the planning implications for those activities which cause the most local controversy and disruption. However, both this option and option 2 would also remove permitted development rights for farmers markets, which are strongly supported by Government. 8.16 These options would not, of course, stop such activities taking place, since an organiser could still apply for planning permission. This might be on the basis of a certain number of activities on a specific site within a year. This would have the advantage of allowing the local planning authority to impose any necessary conditions, including on the duration of the planning permission, without being too burdensome on both the organiser and the authority. 8.17 In both options 2 and 3, removing permitted development rights for temporary markets would not, of itself, remove the market franchise rights bestowed by Royal Charters to which some local authorities and private markets are privy. Local planning authorities would still, therefore, be constrained in their ability to grant planning permission to a proposed temporary market which was within 6 2/3 miles of the site of the charter market. Option 4 8.18 It has been suggested that reducing the number of days on which temporary uses can occur would help to reduce the impact. Option 4 is therefore to reduce the number of days on which temporary markets, all motor sports, and clay pigeon shooting can operate without planning permission to 7 days in any one year. Whilst this would half the number of occasions

on which such activity could take place, it would not allow local planning authorities to control the potentially adverse effects on those days when the markets etc were operating. In addition, it would not help to solve the problem where an organiser has access to a number of separate sites within a small location. Option 5 8.19 Option 5 would be to introduce a size threshold above which permitted development rights would be removed for temporary markets, all motor sports, and clay pigeon shooting. Different thresholds would need to be established for each activity. For example, a suitable size threshold for car boot sales could, perhaps, be based on the number of stalls, or "car boots", or the expected number of people attending such markets. This would allow local planning authorities to control the larger activities which could be expected to have the greatest adverse impact. However, it would have difficulties in terms of enforcement, as well as in ensuring that whatever threshold was set did not catch fetes or other one off charitable events. Option 6 8.20 Option 6 would be to introduce a notification procedure. Some local planning authorities have recommended a simplified notification system, whereby event organisers could ask the authority if they needed planning permission in advance. If the authority felt that the event would cause no harm they could go ahead with it, whereas if there were any potential effects the authority could require planning permission. A significant problem with this idea is that if planning permission was required for a one off event it could take a long time to be authorised, putting the event into jeopardy. In cases where planning permission was refused, there would also be a need to ensure that any subsequent appeals were dealt with speedily. This option would reduce the level of certainty and clarity. Problems may also arise in deciding what action, if any, should be taken if the local authority is not informed of an event taking place. Question 17 - Which option for temporary use provision do you most favour. Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in this paper? Question 18 - Why do you prefer your chosen option?

Endnotes 5. "war game" means an enacted, mock or imaginary battle conducted with weapons which are designed not to injure (including smoke bombs, or guns or grenades which fire or spray paint or are otherwise used to mark participants), but excludes military activities or training exercises organised by or with the authority of the Secretary of State for Defence. 6. It has been established by case law that there can be no difference between car boot sales and weekend markets as far as planning is concerned.

Go to table of contents Part 9: Summary of questions and recommendations Key Principles Question 1 - Do you agree that the UCO and GPDO provisions should be constructed in a way which allows the maximum possible deregulation consistent with delivering planning policy and wider objectives, including protecting amenity? Local flexibility Question 2 - Do you agree that local authorities should be able to relax the need for permission for changes of use in certain specified areas? Question 3 - Do you believe that this can be done through local orders as set out in the Planning Green Paper? Restricting Change of Use Question 4 - Do you agree that local authorities should be able to limit the scope for changes of use by the use of conditions only in exceptional circumstances? Question 5 - Do you agree that this should be limited to circumstances which have been set out in an authority's local plan? A Use Classes Question 6 - Which of the options set out in Part 4 of the consultation paper for Use Class A do you think would most meet the objectives set out at paragraph 4.2 with regard both to town and city centres and to local/neighbourhood centres? Would you prefer to leave Use Class A as it currently is (the "do nothing" option)? Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in this paper? Question 7 - Why do you prefer your chosen option? Question 8 - If a size threshold were introduced in the way recommended by the researchers, do you think that 100 sq m GLA would be appropriate? In your view, what would be the effect of setting such a threshold on the mix of uses in: a) town and city centres? and b) local/neighbourhood centres? B Use Classes Question 9 - Do you think that allowing more use to be made of the existing sub-divisions of the B1 Use Class (for example by splitting them into separate use classes) would help or hinder our policy objectives as set out in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2? It would be helpful if you

could illustrate your answer with examples of where the current composition of the B1 Use Class has had a direct affect (either desirable or undesirable) on the promotion of our policy objectives. Question 10 - Do you think that either of the option set out in Part 5 of the consultation paper for Use Class B would meet the objectives set out at paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2? Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in this paper? Question 11 - Why do you prefer your chosen option? C Use Classes Question 12 - Do you consider that a change to the C Use class would better meet the objectives set out at paragraph 6.1? Question 13 - If yes, what would you recommend and what do you consider would be the benefits? D Use Classes Question 14 - Which of the options set out in Part 7 of the consultation paper for Use Class D do you think would most meet the objectives set out at paragraph 7.1? Would you prefer to leave Use Class D as it currently is (the "do nothing" option)? Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in this paper? Question 15 - Why do you prefer your chosen option? Question 16 - What treatment do you prefer for nightclubs? Why do you prefer your chosen option? Temporary Uses Question 17 - Which of the option set out in Part 8 of the consultation paper option for temporary use provision do you most favour. Would you prefer an alternative option not set out in this paper? Question 18 - Why do you prefer your chosen option?

Part 10: Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)

Use Classes Order And Parts 3 And 4 Of The General Permitted Development Order

Issue and Objectives 10.1 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (UCO) sets out classes of uses (eg shops, business, residential institutions etc). The UCO provides that a move between activities within the same class is not development and therefore does not require planning permission. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (GPDO) provides further flexibility by classifying certain moves between the Use Classes as permitted development, which similarly does not require express planning permission. 10.2 The Planning Green Paper, published on 12 December 2001 set out the Government's proposals for reforming the planning system, making it faster, simpler and more accessible. The Green Paper announced our intention to review the UCO to ensure that it is constructed in a way which allows the maximum possible deregulation consistent with delivering planning policy objectives. Our consultation paper sets out our proposals in more detail. 10.3 In addition to considering the framework for changes of use, the consultation paper also looks at the current temporary use provisions under Part 4 of the GPDO. 10.4 In considering any changes to the UCO and related GPDO provisions, our key principle is that the UCO and GPDO provisions should be constructed in a way which allows the maximum possible deregulation consistent with delivering planning policy and wider objectives, including protecting amenity.

Risk 10.5 The options proposed in the consultation paper do not seek to address a specific risk, but are aimed at meeting the objectives set out above. The existing provisions within the UCO and GPDO which allow change of use without an application for planning permission were formulated on the basis that it served no-one's interest to require planning permission for types of development that generally did not damage amenity. Our thinking has moved on, and we now wish to see a UCO which is able to respond to the above objectives, and in particular which is as deregulatory as possible consistent with delivering planning policy objectives.

Options and Benefits 10.6 The consultation paper sets out a range of options for changes to the use class provisions. We do not have a preferred option, since we would welcome comments on each

before deciding on the most appropriate way forward. In addition, there may be alternative options not set out in the consultation paper which, as a result of consultation, we believe would best deliver our objectives for change. Each options set out in the consultation paper is considered below under the relevant use classes. 10.7 The consultation paper also proposes that local flexibility should be encouraged in areas where the national composition of the UCO and GPDO provisions might have specific undesirable implications. This flexibility should be limited to circumstances where such flexibility is genuinely required to help deliver planning policy objectives. We therefore propose that it should only be used where an authority's local plan sets out appropriate policy establishing where such flexibility should be applied.

A Use Classes 10.8 The A Use Classes cover shops (A1), financial and professional services (A2), and food and drink establishments (A3). Some of the following options propose that one or more of these use classes should be merged. This will benefit developers and owners of such property as they will no longer require an application for planing permission to change use within the new larger use class. This may also benefit local planning authorities since they will have fewer applications to deal with, and ultimately it may benefit local communities as the market will be able to respond faster to the changing needs of consumers. However, where one or more use classes are merged, there will inevitably be a reduction in the opportunity for local people to influence the type of uses to which a building may be put, and a reduction in the ability of the local planning authority to impose appropriate planning conditions. 10.9 Some of the following options also propose that one or more existing use class should be split (for example A3 food and drink). This is likely to increase the workload on local planning authorities, but will allow them the opportunity to control potentially inappropriate development, and will provide local people with an opportunity to comment on a proposed change of use into a different use class. Option 1 10.10 Option 1 is to create a new "mixed retail" use class by combining the current A1 and A2 classes and the A3 class below a set size threshold of 100 square metres of gross lettable area (GLA). Above this size threshold, separate use classes would be set for establishments where the primary purpose was the sale and consumption of alcoholic drink, and establishments for the sale of food and drink primarily for consumption on the premises. Establishments for the sale of hot food to be taken away would not fall within a specific class (and so would be treaded as sui generis). 10.11 The benefits of this option are that there would be greater flexibility for change, thus reducing the need for planning permission and thereby saving both time and money for local authorities and developers. The inclusion of a range of activities within this mixed retail use shops, post offices, small cafs/bars, financial services, banks and travel agents - should maximise the opportunities for the full use of premises.

Option 2 10.12 Option 2 is to create a new "mixed retail" use class by combining the current A1 and A2 classes, but exclude A3 uses entirely from this new class. A3 uses would be split between establishments where the primary purpose was the sale and consumption of alcoholic drink; establishments for the sale of food and drink primarily for consumption on the premises; and establishments for the sale of hot food to be taken away. 10.13 The benefits of this option are that the greater flexibility for change between A1 and A2 uses would be introduced, but local planning authorities would be able to retain control over all establishments for eating and drinking. Option 3 10.14 Option 3 is to create a new "mixed retail" use class by combining the current A1 and A2 classes, and to include in this new class premises for the sale of food and drink primarily on the premises (but excluding take-aways restaurants). Premises for the sale and consumption of alcohol would be a separate use class. 10.15 The benefits of this option are even greater flexibility for use of buildings in a town centre, whilst allowing local planning authorities the ability to retain control over pubs and bars which could have significnat impacts on amenity. Option 4 10.16 Option 4 is to create a new "mixed retail" use class by combining the current A1 and A2 classes, whilst keeping A3 uses as a separate use class retaining both food and drink, but excluding take-away restaurants. 10.17 The benefits of this option are the same as those set out for options 2 and 3 above. Additionally, this option would retain the current flexibility for establishments to change from restaurants to bars (or visa versa) without the need for planing permission, thus avoiding difficult decisions over whether such a material change had or had not occurred. Option 5 10.18 Option 5 is to adopt option 2, 3 or 4, but to include the sale of hot food within the use for the sale of food. 10.19 The benefits of this option are as stated in options 2, 3 or 4 above but with the additional benefit that it would avoid difficulties of definition (for example where a fast-food restaurant includes eat-in and take-away facilities in equal amounts). Option 6 10.20 Option 6 is to leave the A use classes unchanged. The benefits of this option are simplicity since the current composition has been in place for a number of years, and is generally well understood. However, it would not address any of the weaknesses identified

with the current composition and highlighted in the consultation paper.

B Use Classes 10.21 The B Use Classes cover business (B1), general industrial (B2), and storage or distribution (B8). One of the following options proposes that the existing B1 use class should be split . This is likely to increase the workload on local planning authorities, but will allow them the opportunity to control potentially inappropriate development, and will provide local people with an opportunity to comment on a proposed change of use into a different use class. Option 1 10.22 Option 1 is to separate those uses which could be categorised as primarily involving the production of artefacts (currently Class B1(c)) from those uses categorised by the primary purposes of research and development (Class B1(b)) or use as offices (Class B1(a)), which would remain together. 10.23 The benefits of this option are that it would allow greater control over changes to light industrial uses, which might have significantly different land use planning implications (particularly in terms of transport implications) to offices and R&D sites, and so allow local planning authorities to decide whether such changes are appropriate. However, such a change would reduce the level of deregulation currently afforded to business uses within the UCO. Option 2 10.24 Option 2 is to leave the B use classes unchanged. The benefits of this option are that the current flexibility and simplicity of the existing B1 use class would be retained. Maintaining the B1 use class would prevent the need for difficult decisions on which use (office, clean production or research processes) was primary in any particular site or building, and which was ancillary, particularly given that these uses could fluctuate naturally over time. However, this might have implications for meeting planning policy objectives.

C Use Classes 10.25 The C Use Classes cover hotels (C1), residential institution (C2), and dwellinghouses (C3). The consultation paper does not propose any alternative options for the C use classes. This is because any changes in the composition of class C would be unlikely to help resolve the concerns mentioned in the consultation paper.

D Use Classes 10.26 The D Use Classes cover non residential institutions (D1), and assembly and leisure (D2). One of the following options proposes that these two use classes should be merged. This will benefit developers and owners of such property as they will no longer require an application for planing permission to change use within the new larger use class. This may also

benefit local planning authorities since they will have fewer applications to deal with, and ultimately it may benefit local communities as the market will be able to respond faster to the changing needs of consumers. However there would inevitably be a reduction in the opportunity for local people to influence the type of uses to which a building may be put, and a reduction in the ability of the local planning authority to impose appropriate planning conditions. 10.27 Some of the following options also propose that one or more existing use class should be split (in particular to remove nightclubs from D2). This is likely to increase the workload on local planning authorities, but will ensure allow them the opportunity to control potentially inappropriate development, and will allow local people an opportunity to comment on a proposed change of use into a different use class. Option 1 10.28 Option 1 is to remove nightclubs from the current D Use Classes, and to treat them, within the A use classes, as premises where the primary purpose is the sale and consumption of alcoholic drink. The benefits of this option are that nightclubs can be treated in the same way as pubs and bars which might be considered to have similar land use planning implications. It would also remove the uncertainty over the appropriate class for a bar with a dance floor. Option 2 10.29 Option 2 is for nightclubs to be put in a class of their own, either under the D use classes or the A use classes. The benefits of this option are that nightclubs could be considered by local planning authorities on the basis of their particular land use planning implications which might be as unlike those of traditional pubs as they are those of other dance halls. Option 3 10.30 Option 3 is to merge the current D1 and D2 use classes to form a single assembly and leisure class. The benefits of this option are that it would increase flexibility and deregulation over what is a very disparate group of uses. Option 4 10.31 Option 4 is to leave the D use classes unchanged. The benefits of this option are simplicity since the current composition has been in place for a large number of years, and is generally well understood. The current composition of the D Use classes tends to give rise to fewer significant concerns than that of the A or B use classes.

Temporary Uses Option 1 10.32 Option 1 is to retain the current temporary use provisions. 10.33 The benefits of this option are that the existing flexibility will be retained. However, this

option would not address any of the concerns identified in the consultation paper. Option 2 10.34 Option 2 is for all temporary use provisions currently under Class B of Part 4 of the GPDO to be removed and replaced with a requirement for events organisers to seek planning permission for a site on which they might wish to hold activities from time to time. 10.35 The benefits of this option are that land use planning implications can be taken into account for all uses of land. However, it would also catch a great deal of activity that takes advantage of the permitted development rights and which causes no harm to issues of acknowledged planning importance. Option 3 10.36 Option 3 is to remove permitted development rights for car boot sales, weekend markets, all motor sports, and clay pigeon shooting, but to retain it for all other uses currently allowed under Part 4 of the GPDO. 10.37 The benefits of this option are that local planning authorities would be able to consider the planning implications for those activities which cause the most local controversy and disruption. However this option would also remove permitted development rights for farmers markets, which are strongly supported by Government. Option 4 10.38 Option 4 is to reduce the number of days on which car boot sales, weekend markets, all motor sports, and clay pigeon shooting can operate without planning permission to 7 days in any one year. 10.39 The benefits of this option are that reducing the number of days on which temporary uses can occur would help to reduce the impact. However, whilst this would half the number of occasions on which such activity could take place, it would not allow local planning authorities to control the potentially adverse effects on those days when the markets etc were operating. Option 5 10.40 Option 5 is to introduce a size threshold above which permitted development rights would be removed for car boot sales, weekend markets, all motor sports, and clay pigeon shooting. 10.41 The benefits of this option are that local planning authorities could control the larger activities which could be expected to have the greatest adverse impact. However, there would be enforcement difficulties, as well as difficulties in ensuring that whatever threshold was set did not catch fetes or other one off charitable events. Option 6

10.42 Option 6 is to introduce a notification procedure. 10.43 The benefits of this option are that if an authority felt that an event would cause no harm it could go ahead without express planning permission, whereas if the authority felt that it would have potentially adverse effects the authority could require an application for planning permission. However, this option would lack simplicity and certainty, and could be very difficult for local planning authorities to manage.

Costs 10.44 The economic benefits of the various options are difficult to quantify. However, there are likely to be impact costs for developers and local planning authorities in all options which propose the removal of current flexibilities within the UCO and GPDO provisions. Nevertheless, these may be offset by increased flexibilities in other areas. 10.45 Where there are direct costs, these are likely to fall on developers, or on local planning authorities who might be liable for compensation where existing permitted development rights are removed. There may also be economic costs caused by additional delay in requiring planning permission where none was previously needed. 10.46 It would be helpful if you could let us have your thoughts on what the potential costs might be of any of the options outlined above. A full Regulatory Impact Appraisal, which takes account of the potential costs of each option, will accompany the final proposals following consultation.

Impact on small businesses 10.47 Small Business Service is being consulted.

Securing Compliance 10.48 All the above options could be implemented by changes to secondary legislation, and the updating of existing guidance. Compliance with any new regulations would be achieved by the existing compliance mechanisms within the planning system (including enforcement measures). 10.49 We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of any changes we introduce, and will review any new measures within three years of them coming into force.

Part 11: Executive Summary from research report

What the study set out to do 11.1 The Orders are a deregulatory mechanism intended to free from planning control changes of use that are unlikely to have consequences that there could be good planning reason to regulate. The Use Classes Order works by placing activities into groups so that a move between activities within the same group is not development and does not require planning permission, and the General Permitted Development Order works by providing for certain moves between certain of the Use Classes to be permitted development. 11.2 From time to time the activities that need to be encompassed by the Orders change as the economy develops, new activities emerge and tastes change. The Orders will work better and command more confidence if they appear contemporary, though keeping the Orders up to date implies regular change, which can itself be confusing and disruptive to planning policy makers and to property interests and operators. 11.3 The basis on which the current Orders determine where there should be opportunities for planning control is largely related to the prospect of adverse impacts on amenity arising. Even then, the construction of parts of the Orders is not explicitly concerned with the amenity effects of traffic. 11.4 The approach now being taken by the study brief to the review of the Orders is rather wider. It is to examine the Orders in terms of their contribution to the delivery of planning objectives, and particularly to the achievement of integrated transport. The requirement from the review of the Orders is the identification of a set of provisions within the Orders that better fit with the aims of the planning system, identified in the form of planning policy objectives. 11.5 The planning policy objectives identified from the examination of Planning Policy Guidance and the Urban and Rural White Papers in particular, and considered to be pertinent to the review of the UCO and GPDO are summarised as being: the efficient use of land and buildings the management of the demand for travel, the promotion of the use of appropriate modes and the provision of equitable levels of access the maintenance and enhancement of the role of town centres, and of their vitality and viability the delivery of an urban renaissance the facilitation of economic development the protection of the environment the protection of public amenity.

11.6 The proposals from the study are intended to make the operation of the UCO and GPDO

help in the delivery of these planning policy objectives.

The way that the Orders are to work 11.7 It would be ideal for the Orders to be constructed so that they can accommodate changes in the dynamics of the property market and continue to provide the appropriate level of regulation without themselves having to change. The need to set out a clear position on specific land uses makes the achievement of a 'universal' approach to the management of unforeseeable activities on the basis of their impacts difficult to achieve in practice. 11.8 Our intention in this review has been to move some way towards this ideal. This has been addressed in the study by: making explicit the principles that (it is suggested) should be encompassed by any changes to the Orders thinking about the relationship between statutory rules for the operation of the development control system established at the national level and the role of development plans Approach 11.9 The study has sought to take a broad view of the operation of the Orders initially, primarily from the point of planning authorities as they have the main responsibility for the delivery of the planning objectives. Having identified the main areas of concern, these have been examined in more depth through case studies, involving the views of a wide range of participants. As a further part of the process, the study sought to test developing ideas at different stages in the study with seminars and workshops.

Proposals for change 11.10 The study is intended to inform a review of the Orders. There are a variety of opportunities that such a review could take, and these are: to leave the Orders as they are to change some of the details rather than the construction of the Orders so as to achieve more precision in the operation of the Orders as well as to update them in terms of the activities addressed to change the way that activities are distributed among different Use Classes in the Orders to change the provisions made in the GPDO for moves to take place between the Use Classes (and activities that are not included in a Use Class) without the requirement for planning permission to provide for locally determined policies to have a greater role, with guidance provided to make clear that this is intended, and to explain what the circumstances might be and the form of justification likely to be required.

11.11 These possible steps are not mutually exclusive, apart from the option of leaving the Orders as they are. 11.12 Our conclusion is that some changes should be made to the Orders and our proposals draw upon a combination of the possible ways forward. The changes that we propose be made are summarised below by reference to the relative provisions within the current Orders. 11.13 For those activities currently addressed by the A Use Classes and by the relevant GPDO provisions, our recommendations are that: for any premises where the primary use is to be the sale for consumption off the premises of hot food to be classified as a separate use (and thus be sui generis) to combine the uses within the present A1 and A2 Use Classes into the same Use Class, together with those uses other than hot food takeaways within the existing A3 Use Class when they are below an identified size threshold; this new combined Use Class is referred to as the 'mixed retail' use ('Aa') for premises above the stated size where the primary purpose is the consumption of food on the premises to be classified as a separate use ('Ab') for premises above the stated size where the primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol on the premises to be classified as a separate use ('Ac') for sandwich shops and coffee shops to be part of the new mixed retail use if they are below the size threshold and otherwise to be classified with uses where the primary purpose is the consumption of food on the premises for internet shops/cafs where the primary purpose is the sale of access to internet services to be within the new mixed retail use, or if they are above the size threshold and have as a primary purpose the consumption of food on the premises or the consumption of alcohol on the premises, to be classified according to their primary purpose ('Ab' or 'Ac' respectively) for premises either for the consumption of alcohol on the premises or used as hot food takeaways to be able to change to premises for the consumption of food on the premises without the requirement for planning permission to remove the provision for motor sales to change to shops as permitted development. for warehouse clubs to be included within the 'Aa' mixed retail class

11.14 For those activities currently addressed by the B Use Classes and by the relevant GPDO provisions, our recommendations are that: the current Class B1(c) uses be made a separate Use Class the provision within the GPDO that a move from Class B2 to B1 be permitted development be replaced by a provision that a move from Class B2 to Class B1(c) be permitted development.

11.15 For those activities currently addressed by the C Use Classes and by the relevant GPDO provisions, our recommendations are that there be no change from the current Orders. 11.16 For those activities currently addressed by the D Use Classes and by the relevant GPDO provisions, our recommendations are that nightclubs be identified as distinct from dancehalls, and be included with the use of premises where the primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol on the premises 11.17 For those activities currently addressed by Part 4, Schedule 2 of the GPDO (the Temporary Uses), our recommendations are that the permitted development rights be withdrawn and be replaced by a requirement that the uses take place only on land that has planning permission for the use. 11.18 These proposals are set out in the summary table below.

The way forward 11.19 During the study, views have been sought and heard from many parties with varying interests. There would however need to be very wide consultation on any changes that were proposed to be made to the Orders as a consequence of this report and other influences. 11.20 In making proposals for changes to the way that the planning system works it is usually the case that what is proposed will affect the way planning applications are dealt with in the future. In the case of any changes to the Orders however, this is only part of the effect, because it is in the nature of the Orders that their provisions greatly affect property that already exists and will affect the way that the owners and users of the space can operate in the future. A further complication is that there may well be a time between proposals being made and coming into effect during which the owners may seek to reposition their property to gain best advantage from any changes that might be likely. 11.21 There is a limit to the degree to which a study such as has been undertaken can have regard to such matters, and the study has sought instead to present informed proposals for changes to the Orders that would enable them to better fit with the different means available to the planning system to deliver the current objectives for land use planning. Use Revised Use Revised Classes GPDO Order Sale or provision of goods and services Change to Aa Aa to visiting members of the public plus single flat Mixed Retail allowed including Uses sale of goods and cold food, including through warehouse clubs, and including sandwich shops financial and professional services (including the sale of access to

internet services) excluding health and medical services sale of food and drink for consumption on premises subject to a maximum GLA of 100 sq m Sale of food and drink primarily for Change to Aa Ab consumption on the premises, but allowed Restaurants including sandwich shops, where the and Cafes GLA of the enclosed floorspace is greater than 100sq m Sale of drink and food for consumption Change to Aa Ac on premises where the primary purpose and Ab Public is the sale and consumption of alcoholic allowed Houses, drink (including nightclubs) where the Bars and GLA of the enclosed floorspace is Nightclubs greater than 100sq m Shops for the sale of hot food to be Sui generis Change to Aa taken away (including drive-throughs) and Ab allowed Shops selling or displaying motor Sui generis No change of vehicles for sale use allowed Launderettes, taxi businesses, car hire Sui generis No change of businesses, filling stations, scrapyards use allowed Use Revised Use Revised Classes GPDO Order Offices other than financial and Change to B8 Ba professional services provided for (only up to Offices and 235sq m of visiting members of the public R&D floor space) Research and development allowed Clean production processes Change to B8 Bb (only up to 235 Clean sq m of floor production space) allowed General production processes Change to Bb B2 allowed General production Storage and Distribution Change to Ba B8 and Bb (only Storage and up to 235 sq m distribution of floor space) allowed Work registerable under Alkali etc, Sui generis No change of Works regulation Act use allowed Use Use Classes GPDO 1995

Hotels, boarding and guest houses, provided that care is not provided Residential accommodation for provision of care, e.g. old age homes Residential schools and colleges and training centres Hospitals and nursing homes Dwelling houses for individuals, families and up to six individuals living as a single household

Order 1987 C1 Hotels C2 Residential Institutions

No change of use allowed No change of use allowed

Subdivision of dwelling Dwelling houses into houses two or more dwelling houses not allowed Use Use Classes GPDO 1995 Order 1987 Clinics, health centres, crches, day No change of D1 nurseries, day centres, consulting use allowed Non rooms (not attached to doctors house) residential Museums, libraries, art galleries, public institutions and exhibition halls C3 Non-residential schools, colleges and other educational centres Public worship or religious instruction Cinemas, dance and concert halls Swimming pools, skating rinks, gymnasiums Other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure uses, bingo halls, casinos Theatres, amusement arcades and centres, fun fairs

D2 Assembly and leisure

No change of use allowed

Sui generis

No change of use allowed