Two Class MA appeals were dismissed on 4 November 2026 after Planning Inspectors found that work to convert commercial premises into homes had started before the necessary prior approval. The decisions concern one proposed flat in Ormskirk, Lancashire, and five flats in Hornchurch, east London.
In Ormskirk, Inspector K Mee found that internal conversion works were complete and the former commercial storage building was already being occupied as a family home. In Hornchurch, Inspector J Sargent found that five flats were taking shape even though important fittings had not yet been installed. Neither appeal could succeed through the Class MA procedure.
The two Class MA appeals show why the timing of development matters just as much as the merits of transport, natural light or other prior approval issues. In both cases, the Inspector stopped at the more basic question: did the proposal still qualify as permitted development under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO)?
Why the Class MA appeals were dismissed
Class MA in Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 allows qualifying changes of use from Use Class E to Use Class C3, subject to the limitations and conditions of the right. The applicant must go through the prescribed prior approval process before starting the development to which it relates.
The relevant procedure includes paragraph W(11). Under its applicable provisions, the development must not begin before the developer has received the required written determination about prior approval, or another relevant statutory route for proceeding has been satisfied. It is not enough merely to submit the application and then continue with conversion works while the council is considering it.
This is not a point about whether an existing commercial building could, in principle, provide decent homes. It is about whether the development falls within the right being claimed at the time it is carried out. Our guide to Class MA conversions explains the substantive eligibility conditions and the prior approval procedure.
Ormskirk: completed conversion and family occupation
The first case concerned a single-storey brick building adjoining commercial premises on Wigan Road, Ormskirk. Application 2026/0006/PNC sought approval for conversion to a two-bedroom flat through internal alterations. West Lancashire Borough Council refused on the stated ground that the scheme failed to “provide sufficient access to natural light to habitable rooms”.
Inspector K Mee visited the site on 27 October 2026. The proposed floor plan showed partitions dividing the space into rooms, together with a kitchen and shower room. On inspection, the internal works were already complete, and furnishings and personal belongings indicated that a family was living there.
The Inspector concluded that residential use had already begun. In paragraph 9 of the decision, the Inspector said prior approval could not be granted retrospectively where development had begun or been completed, including during the appeal. The proposal therefore fell outside Class MA, and there was no need to adjudicate on the council’s natural-light objection.
That is a significant distinction for the Class MA appeals. A case may be refused for one stated reason, yet on appeal fail for the independent threshold reason that the works were started too soon. The Inspector’s role is not confined to rubber-stamping the reason on the council’s refusal notice where the claimed permitted development right itself is unavailable.
Hornchurch: unfinished flats were already under way
The second case involved a building on Park Lane, Hornchurch, where applicant Eugen Grosz sought prior approval for five flats across three storeys, under application J0011.26. Inspector J Sargent visited on 1 October 2026 and examined the work carried out against the submitted scheme.
Two flats were being formed on the ground floor, two on the first and another on the second. The subdivisions, room arrangements and circulation spaces corresponded broadly with the five-unit proposal. Some bathrooms and kitchens still lacked appliances, but their intended positions and connections had been prepared and the commercial use was ceasing.
The Inspector noted that prior approval had previously been granted for residential units in the same building. That was not decisive. The appeal concerned the particular five-flat proposal, and the works being carried out were sufficiently similar to that scheme, despite some differences between the layout and the submitted plans.
In paragraph 3, the Inspector explained that prior approval could not be granted for development that had already begun, even where it was unfinished. The development failed paragraph W(11), so the appeal was dismissed without needing to assess the other requirements of Class MA.
Unlike Ormskirk, the Hornchurch flats were not yet fully fitted out. That makes the pairing useful. The Class MA appeals did not turn on how much work remained: the key finding in each was that implementation of the development described in the application had already started.
The High Court authority behind the timing rule
The Ormskirk Inspector expressly cited Winters v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 357 (Admin). That was a High Court case about the prior approval procedure for a larger house extension under Part 1 Class A rather than a Class MA conversion. The High Court nonetheless addressed the broader principle that the GPDO prior approval process concerns proposed development and cannot operate retrospectively for work already begun.
In Winters, the council’s notification had arrived outside the prescribed period. Even so, the court upheld the Inspector’s conclusion that the permission could not be relied upon where the extension had already been started before the prior approval application. For the holding and its practical effect, see Planning Geek’s Winters prior approval case summary.
The particular statutory wording must still be checked in each case. The Class MA appeals concerned the Part 3 procedure, with its own conditions, and the findings of commencement were based on the evidence from the Inspectors’ site visits. The common lesson is to secure the correct approval before carrying out the qualifying development.
Can a developer regularise work already done?
The dismissal of a prior approval appeal does not, by itself, determine every possible planning route for the land. Where the GPDO right is unavailable, an ordinary planning application may be appropriate. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows applications seeking permission for development already carried out, although there is no guarantee that permission will be granted.
The distinction between submitting a planning application and relying on permitted development is especially important for commercial-to-residential schemes. Planning permission may involve a wider assessment against the development plan and other material considerations, whereas a qualifying Class MA proposal uses a prescribed prior approval process with defined matters for consideration.
Planning Geek’s guidance on change of use and planning permission explains why the lawful existing use, the development undertaken and the permissions actually held must all be established before choosing an application route. Evidence of when works commenced, which areas were occupied and whether the built scheme matches the application can become central on appeal.
The two Class MA appeals are useful reminders for investors and agents working with vacant shops, offices or other Class E premises. Work that looks like routine internal fitting-out can have planning consequences where it implements a material change of use before the applicable prior approval procedure has been completed.
Where to read the appeal decisions
Inspector K Mee dismissed the Ormskirk appeal under reference 6015178 on 4 November 2026. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
Inspector J Sargent dismissed the Hornchurch appeal under reference 6014395 on the same date. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments