A Prebend Street Class MA appeal has exposed a simple but important permitted development trap: a later planning report cannot turn part of a building into Class E if its lawful planning use was never actually changed.
The Islington appeal failed because the proposed conversion at 72 Prebend Street included a floor which remained associated with the former sui generis public-house use. Class MA could not be used to convert that part of the building to flats.
Why the Prebend Street Class MA appeal failed
The appeal concerned 72 Prebend Street, Islington, London N1 8PR. Prebend Ltd sought prior approval for the conversion of the ground and first floors into four self-contained homes under Class MA of Part 3 of the GPDO.
Class MA grants planning permission for a change from a building in Use Class E to Use Class C3, subject to its limitations and prior approval conditions. The first question was therefore more basic than design, natural light or noise: was the relevant building actually in Class E?
Inspector N Unwin concluded that it was not.
The building started as a sui generis public house
The three-storey building with basement had a complicated planning history. It had formerly been a public house, a sui generis use. The pub occupied the ground and basement levels, with ancillary accommodation on the first and second floors.
That historic arrangement mattered because a planning permission can change the use of a particular part of a building without changing the lawful use of every other floor.
An earlier appeal changed only the ground and lower-ground floors
In appeal APP/V5570/W/21/3281724, planning permission had been granted for a change from the public house to a cafe and juice bar in Use Class E(b).
But the description was expressly limited to the ground and lower-ground floors. The decision did not refer to the first and second floors. The Inspector in the 2026 appeal therefore treated the ground and lower-ground floors as Class E, but not the floors above.
This is the key point: the earlier permission was expressly confined to the ground and lower-ground floors. A later description in another planning document could not expand the scope of that permission.
A second appeal did not turn the upper floors into Class E
A separate appeal, APP/V5570/W/21/3284945, concerned a proposed change of the first and second floors to an apart-hotel.
The Inspector in that earlier case observed that concerns about the loss of ancillary public-house accommodation were no longer applicable because there was no longer a public house. However, that observation did not say that the first and second floors had ceased to be in their existing sui generis use.
Indeed, the description of development in that appeal referred to the change of use of the first and second floors of the former public house from sui generis use.
An officer report could not change the lawful use
A delegated report for planning application P2025/1014/FUL later referred to the second floor as ancillary to the Class E use on the ground floor.
The 2026 Inspector dealt with that point very directly. A statement in a delegated report did not make the second floor Class E. Planning status is not altered simply because an officer later describes a floor differently.
If the lawful use is uncertain, a lawful development certificate can often provide a much firmer basis before a permitted development application is made.
Class MA could not convert the sui generis floor
The current proposal was described as conversion of the ground and first floors to four homes. The ground floor benefited from the earlier Class E permission, but the first floor had not been changed to Class E by that permission.
Class MA permits a change from Class E to C3. It does not grant permission to convert a floor which remains in a sui generis use to residential use.
Because the proposal included that non-Class-E element, the Inspector concluded that the development was not permitted development under Class MA at all.
The two-year Class MA test never became decisive
There was also a dispute about the Class MA requirement for the building to have fallen within the specified use classes for a continuous period of at least two years before the prior approval application.
The Inspector did not need to decide that issue. Once the proposal failed the more fundamental test because part of the building was not Class E, no finding on the two-year period could rescue it.
For the same reason, there was no need to go on to determine the other prior approval issues involving the Arlington Conservation Area, natural light and noise from commercial premises.
Check mixed-use buildings floor by floor before relying on Class MA
The practical lesson is wider than former pubs. Mixed-use buildings, historic shops with accommodation above, offices split over time and buildings with old ancillary floors can all carry different lawful uses in different parts.
Before relying on a permitted development right, establish the planning status of the part of the building you actually want to convert.
- Read the operative description and conditions on earlier permissions carefully
- Check which floors or areas each permission actually changed
- Do not assume an officer report or later planning statement has altered the lawful use
- Trace whether a permission was implemented and whether later development changed the position again
- Use a lawful development certificate where the existing use needs to be established before a Class MA application
Planning Geek’s Class MA guide sets out the current permitted development right, while our Use Classes and sui generis pages explain why a use outside the classes cannot simply be treated as Class E.
Descriptions are evidence, not a substitute for planning history
The appeal is a useful reminder for applicants and councils alike. A delegated report can be evidence of what an officer thought at a particular time, but it does not grant planning permission. The legal effect comes from the permission, lawful development certificate, permitted development right or other planning event which actually established or changed the use.
For historically subdivided buildings, that may mean assembling the position floor by floor and permission by permission before deciding whether a GPDO route is available.
Read the appeal decision
The appeal, reference 6002628, was dismissed on 28th August 2026. Planning Geek hosts the full appeal decision for 72 Prebend Street in our own library.
Published: 4th September 2026
0 Comments