Greater opportunities for flexible use of Town Centres?
Changes to the Planning Use Classes Order
Alice Kennedy
From 1st September 2020 new legislation (the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020) came into force which reformed the well-established use class system in England. The principles remain the same, in that different types of land use are categorised into specific Use Classes, and that changing between uses in the same Use Class is not considered to constitute development, and therefore does not require planning permission. However, the land uses that are grouped together have changed and are summarised in the following table.
There are some detailed transitional provisions that affect how and when the changes can be implemented. These include how the changes align with new permitted development rights, and the effect the changes have on extant/existing planning permissions. Further details are set out in Regulation 2 of the 2020 Regulations.
What are the key changes?
The key changes can be summarised as follows:
Introduction of a new Class E Commercial, Business and Service. This encompasses a broad range of uses including but not limited to: retail, cafes and restaurants, financial and professional services, indoor sport and recreation, medical or health services (for visiting members of the public), crèche, day nursery and day centres, offices, research and development, and light industrial.
Sporting and community facilities (along with shops that support a community function e.g. village shops) have been moved to a new Class F.2 Local Community, while educational and non-residential institutions have been moved to Class F.1 Learning and Non-Residential Institutions.
Public houses, takeaways, and entertainment venues which used to fall into Class A4 (pub or drinking establishment), A5 (take away) and D2 (Assembly and leisure) are now classified as Sui Generis meaning that any change of use to or from these uses will require planning permission.
Residential uses (Class C), general industrial (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) uses remain unchanged.
What does this mean for Towns?
The new Class E Use Class provides increased flexibility in how employment premises and workspaces can used and the speed at which they can evolve in the future. Since changing between uses within the same Use Class does not constitute development, under Class E it is now possible to move between a wider variety of uses without requiring planning permission. For example, a building could change from a café to an office, or flex how it is used over the course of a day.
This new flexibility could present opportunities to increase the resilience of high streets enabling a broader mix of uses to flourish. Towns may decide to encourage new uses or shared spaces, reducing the risk of vacant plots in key areas. These changes could also assist in bringing back into use vacant or underutilised sites or buildings.
It is, however, important to consider the risks that this flexibility can bring. It may result in the introduction of inappropriate uses in some buildings/areas or buildings and premises not being fit-for-purpose for the new uses. Towns may therefore wish to think about how key sites and areas are curated to minimise any unintended consequences of these changes. One way for local planning authorities to do this can be through including planning conditions on new planning permissions that restrict the use of the building.
What next?
The changes to the Use Class Order are currently subject to Judicial Review by the campaign group Rights: Community: Action (RCA). On 17th November 2020, the High Court dismissed the attempt by RCA to overturn the Government’s recent changes, so as it stands, the recent changes to the new Use Classes Order will remain in place. RCA have noted their intention to appeal, and if this proceeds then clearly some level of uncertainty around the permanence of the changes will continue.
[1] This challenge, brought forward by RCA, is based on three grounds: the government failed to conduct a Strategic Environmental Assessment; an equality impact assessment was not carried out; and there was a failure to take account of consultation responses.