The appeal site comprised an end of terrace property with a shop at ground floor and with a flat above. The shop had been extended to the rear in 2017. The appellant had tried to argue that the relevant restrictions in paragraph A1 of Part 7, Class A of the GPDO only related to residential institutions and not dwellinghouses because of the reference to residential premises or institutions, but the inspector disagreed, holding that in his view the reference to premises had a wider meaning to include all residential premises. His understanding was that the wording of paragraph A1 was clear in that development of a shop was restricted if it was on land that adjoined another premises which was used for the purpose within any of the classes in Part C of the schedule to the Use Classes Order, namely residential uses.
The appellant also tried to argue that because the adjoining premises constituted a shop with a flat above then this was also excluded from the relevant paragraph because flats are excluded from the definition of a dwellinghouse for the purpose of the GDPO. The inspector disagreed again, holding that whilst the definition of a dwellinghouse excluded flats for the purpose of Article 2(1) applying to permitted development rights for dwellinghouses, Part 7, Class A Paragraph A1 did not direct you to Article 2(1) but to part C of the UCO covering all residential premises including flats and equally, the UCO did not explicitly exclude flats from Use Class C3. The inspector concluded the extension would be on land that adjoined other premises which were used for a purpose falling within Part C and could not therefore be permitted development and was not lawful.
Inspector: R Satheesan; Written representations