The proposed redevelopment of a police station in Newcastle is set to test whether the so-called “planning unit” approach to change of use applications should apply to permitted development rights.
Property development company Hadrian Property Investment is seeking to convert the disused Westgate Road Police Station in Newcastle upon Tyne.
The developers want to demolish parts of the building and extend others, leading to a mixed-use development of apartments, shops, a dental surgery and a restaurant with a takeaway and drive-though. Parts of the exist building are offices, and there is also a prison cell block and a maintenance depot.
The application for change of use was rejected by Newcastle City Council and then on appeal by a planning inspector. Hadrian Property Investment has appealed the planning inspector’s recommendations to the High Court.
In a hearing earlier this week, lawyers for the the developer argued that the inspector erred in her interpretation of the planning rules.
“The inspector adopted the approach… that the planning unit was relevant for the determination of whether permitted development rights were engaged, at least in the present case,” said Mr Justice Fordham, who heard the case via video conference in Leeds this week.
The inspector said: “For all of the ‘change of use’ permitted development rights, it is necessary to establish what the ‘from’ use is, in order to know whether the relevant permitted development rights engaged. The appropriate way to establish that is by looking at the planning unit.”
The inspector said that in applying the planning unit approach, the development of offices in the central building into dwellings would not benefit from permitted development rights under the General Permitted Development Order of 2015 (GPDO).
According to the ruling, the planning unit approach is an accepted way of assessing whether there has been “material change in the use of any buildings or other land” and if a change of use involves a change from being “used for a purpose of any class specified” to “the use… for any other purpose of the same class” by reference to a “class”.
However, lawyers for the developers argued that the approach “is not the governing criterion for the purposes of consideration of the ‘distinct’ question (a word used in the secretary of state’s summary grounds) of whether there is a ‘permitted development’ for the purposes of planning permission conferred by means of the GPDO”.
“Ultimately, the claimant’s argument is that the GPDO… stands alone and… that it is wrong to ‘import’ into it the concept of ‘planning unit’.”
The judge ruled that the point was “arguable”. He ruled that there should be a substantive hearing of the point at a later date.
Hadrian Property Investment v (1) Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing (2) Newcastle City Council and West End Residents Association
Planning Court sitting in Leeds (Mr Justice Fordham) 17 May
(Transcript of an ex tempore judgment)
To send feedback, e-mail newsdesk@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews
