Former shop premises used as bureau de change — Whether material change of use — Whether use as bureaux de change fell within Class A1 or Class A2 of use classes order — High Court holding that premises properly classified Class A2 — Court of Appeal refusing leave to appeal
The appellants were served with enforcement notices relating to two separate premises on Brompton Road, London SW3, within the Knightsbridge shopping area, which were operated as bureaux de change. The alleged breach of planning control was the unauthorised change of use from retail shop use within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, to a primary use as financial services within Class A2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI 1987 No 764). Class A1(a) referred to “Use for the retail sale of goods other than hot food where the sale is to visiting members of the public”. Class A2 was entitled “Financial and Professional Services” and was divided into three categories.
The reason the enforcement action was taken was that the change of use to primarily financial services resulted in the loss of a retail shop within the core shopping frontage of the Knightsbridge shopping centre to the detriment of the character, function and vitality of the centre. By article 3(1) of the use classes order where a building or other land was used for a purpose of any class specified in the Schedule to the order, the use of that building or land for any other purpose of the same class should not be taken to involve development of the land and it did not therefore require planning permission. The appellants argued that the primary purpose for the use of the premises was sale of currency. Currency was to be regarded as “goods” and thus the use was as a shop for the retail sale of goods to the public within Class A1. The appellants appealed unsuccessfully to the Secretary of State for the Environment and the High Court: see [1993] 3 PLR 49. They applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.
Held Leave to appeal was refused.
1. There was no definition of “goods” or of “financial services” within the use classes order and so the correct approach was to look at their ordinary and natural meaning in the context of the use classes order. An important part of that context was that the order did have a particular class relating to the provision of financial services, as well as the class containing the use for the purpose of retail sale of goods.
2. The inspector found that the principal activity of the bureaux de change was the provision of sterling to those visiting members of the public in the Knightsbridge shopping area who wished to exchange their foreign currency or travellers cheques for sterling.
3. Given the presence of A2 Class in the use classes order, and giving the words their normal and natural meaning, the judge was right to find it inappropriate to classify the operation carried on in the bureaux as the retail sale of goods under the overall heading of “shop”.
4. The inspector’s conclusion that there had been a change of use was correct as a matter of law. There was no arguable point of law to be considered and leave was refused.
Brian Knight QC (instructed by the solicitor to Palisade Investments) appeared for the appellants; Alice Robinson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council did not appear and were not represented.
