A Class MA appeal in Dursley has been won after a separate planning permission for new windows and rooflights rescued the conversion, with the Inspector also making a full award of costs against Stroud District Council.
The decision at 5A Water Street is a particularly useful example of two planning routes working together. Class MA authorised the change from commercial use to two flats, while a conventional planning permission authorised the operational development needed to give the new homes adequate natural light.
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
Why Stroud refused the prior approval
The proposal was to convert an existing vacant office/storage building into two flats. The council accepted that the scheme otherwise qualified for prior approval under Class MA, which allows a change from Class E to Class C3 dwellinghouses.
The problem was daylight. The submitted plans showed new external windows and rooflights, as well as cycle and bin storage. Those physical works were building operations under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Class MA permits the change of use, but it does not itself grant planning permission for the operational development needed to facilitate that change. Stroud therefore refused prior approval because the new openings fell outside Class MA and, without them, the proposed flats would not have adequate natural light in all habitable rooms.
Why the Class MA appeal succeeded
The crucial fact was that the windows and rooflights were not unapproved works. A separate planning permission, S.25/1492/FUL, had already authorised replacement roof material and new fenestration and remained extant until 21 October 2028.
The appellant proposed a planning condition preventing occupation of the Class MA flats until the separately permitted window, rooflight and associated external works had been completed.
Inspector B Phillips accepted that solution. The appeal was allowed and prior approval granted subject to a condition that no dwelling could be occupied until those works had been completed in accordance with the separate permission.
A second condition secured the noise mitigation measures in the submitted acoustic assessment. The Inspector declined to impose suggested conditions on construction hours and dust because they were not related to Class MA prior-approval matters.
Zenith supplied the answer
The decision followed R (LW Zenith Ltd) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 3317 (Admin), which Planning Geek now hosts locally.
Zenith concerned the former Class O office-to-residential right. The High Court held that, where separate planning permission already existed for windows needed to provide adequate natural light, a negative condition restricting occupation until those works were carried out was an obvious and lawful solution.
The Dursley Inspector found the circumstances very similar. Nothing in the material before him justified a different result simply because Class O has since been replaced by Class MA.
The important limit remains: the prior approval itself does not grant permission for the windows. The operational works need their own lawful planning route.
Why the council now has to pay the costs
The separate costs decision makes this more than a routine prior-approval win. The appellant had consistently pointed to Zenith and provided the judgment, while the council maintained that the operational development took the proposal beyond Class MA.
The Inspector considered the council’s case against using a condition to be limited and vague. Planning Practice Guidance identifies refusal on a ground that could be dealt with by a suitable condition as conduct that can justify costs where it causes unnecessary or wasted expense.
Because the separately approved windows and rooflights meant a suitable occupation condition could enable the development to proceed, the Inspector found the refusal unreasonable. A full award of the appeal costs was therefore made against Stroud District Council.
You can read the full appeal decision for 6008924 and the separate full costs decision, both hosted by Planning Geek.
The Regulation 77 point
The site lies within the catchment of the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation. Article 3(1) of the GPDO therefore interacts with regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
Under regulation 77, a separate application can be required to the LPA so that the Habitats Regulations process is completed before development relying on a general development order is carried out.
The Inspector found that neither the GPDO nor the Habitats Regulations prescribe a sequence requiring the Regulation 77 process to be completed before the prior-approval decision itself. Both requirements do, however, have to be satisfied before the Class MA development can lawfully commence.
That is why the Inspector did not carry out an Appropriate Assessment within the prior-approval appeal itself.
Need new windows for a Class MA conversion?
- Identify exactly what the Class MA right authorises
- Separate the change of use from any operational development such as new windows or rooflights
- Secure a separate planning permission where those works need one
- Check whether the two permissions can operate together in practice
- Consider whether an occupation condition can sensibly link the Class MA use to the separately approved works
The appeal does not turn Class MA into a right to carry out external alterations. It shows instead that a prior approval and a separate planning permission can sometimes be stitched together lawfully — and that refusing to consider an obvious condition can be expensive.
Created: 2nd September 2026 — Class MA appeal
