“The Council as the Local Planning Authority hereby grant planning permission for the development proposed by you in your application received on: 12/12/96. Details: CONVERSION OF INDUSTRIAL UNIT INTO A FRANCHISED MOTOR DEALERSHIP”
“It seems clear to me that if nothing had occurred following the occupier’s entry except the suspension of the car-breaking use, the storage use being maintained at its former intensity, no question of a material change of use could be said to have arisen. Merely to cease one of the component activities in a composite use for land would not by itself, in my judgment, ever amount to a material change of use. What has happened here, according to the evidence, is not merely a cessation of the car-breaking activity but the use of the land as a whole for storage, in other words, as the Minister has pointed out in his letter, one now has the entirety of the land used for one of the two component uses to which the land was formerly subjected. In my judgment, asa matter of law there can be a material change of use if one component is allowed to absorb the entire site to the exclusion of the other, but whether or not there is a material change of use is a matter of fact and degree. If the car-breaking business had been so trifling as to be almost de minimis, I would have thought that as a matter of fact and degree that for the area formerly used for car-breaking to be taken over for storage could not amount to a material change of use of the land as a whole. But whether or not in the circumstances of the particular case there was a material change of use would be essentially a question of fact and degree.”
“Even if the Inspector was wrong to reject the contention that the former riding centre still existed, his alternative basis for dismissing the appeal is in my judgment unassailable. If the riding centre activities existed, they existed as part of a mixed use across the whole planning unit including the application area -- a mixed use consisting of residential, equestrian and agricultural uses or activities. That there was a mixed use was found by Mr Baldock and was common ground before the present Inspector. I accept Mr Strachan’s submission that such a mixed use does not fall within the Use Classes Order, and cannot therefore benefit from the exception in s.55(2)(f) [of the 1990 Act]. Belmont’s argument that there is no material change if one component of the mixed use falls within Class D2 and is replaced by another use within Class D2 is unsustainable. In examining use classes the focus must be on the relevant use for the purposes of s.55, which in this case is the mixed use as a whole, rather than on individual components of a mixed use. A change in components will involve a change in the mixed use itself, and, subject to the question of materiality, will amount to a development.”
“1. A business which buys or sells things. 2. A business licensed to sell a particular product by its manufacturer.”
“Specialist companies awarded a contract by a car manufacturer to sell and service that particular brand of car.”
“The 2004 Mintel Report confirmed that the retail sale of new cars was largely by franchise dealers who carried out 90% of the post-sales servicing within the first 3 years. Surveys carried out for the Appellants showed that 100% of the 50 Suzuki dealerships and 50 other franchised motor dealerships in the North East of England had workshops, with the overwhelming majority offering servicing, repairs and MOTs in addition to sales. Workshops were an integral part of franchise dealerships within the UK.”
“Car showroom, car maintenance workshop”
“29. The Appellants’ evidence did not explore the scale and nature of the workshop activities carried out either at this site or elsewhere at ‘dealerships’. There was no available information on turnover from the types of work discussed above -- preparations for sale, servicing of cars sold from the site, servicing/repairs to other Suzuki brand vehicles or more general vehicle repairs. In the absence of such information, I do not consider it reasonable to conclude that activity within the workshop was functionally linked to vehicle sales. The fact that the same staff, equipment and tools were used to carry out preparatory checks and works before vehicles were sold, as were used thereafter on warranty works or general repairs, would not make the latter component part of the selling process. Rather, it would suggest that the workshops were there to provide a facility directed to a wide range of customers as a separate main use. 30. From the size of the facility, the scale of workshop activity would have been likely materially to exceed what might be treated as one subordinate to the business of selling vehicles. It would not have been ‘ordinarily incidental’ to the sales process for the reasons discussed above, and not thereby ancillary to vehicle sales. The workshop component would have had a sufficient impact upon the overall character of the use within the planning unit. To the outside observer, the premises, viewed from the Skippers Lane frontage, would have looked like a car showroom. From the return frontage along Commercial Way they would have had the clear appearance of an industrial unit. 31. My conclusion is that the 1997 planning permission authorized a mixed use of the site. This would have comprised at least the vehicle sales and workshops used for servicing and repairs.”
“10. I accept that in cases where other activities are truly supportive of or ancillary to the main activity permitted, then it does not create a mixed use. The main activity remains the permitted use, and everything else is ancillary to it. But on a true analysis of the business of a franchised motor dealer, or of the operator of the unit in which the car showroom and a workshop are to exist, the one activity is not dependent upon or necessarily ancillary to the other. The servicing, maintenance and repair of cars in a franchise car dealership will be performed on cars that have not been sold by the dealer. Of necessity, therefore, the activity of service, maintaining and repairing such cars is not ancillary to the business of selling cars. The balance within a particular franchised motor dealer’s business may vary from dealer to dealer. One may derive most of his profits and conduct most of his activities by selling motor cars; another may derive a much larger share of his profit and devote a much greater proportion of the efforts to the servicing, maintenance and repair of motor cars. Both remain within the description [the balance may also depend on the economic climate]. I do not accept that merely because a franchised motor dealership had not been carried on without there being a facility for selling a particular manufacturer’s cars, so the activities of servicing, maintaining and repairing cars manufactured by that manufacturer are necessarily or in the ordinary event actually ancillary to the business of selling cars. 11. For these simple reasons, I am satisfied that the use permitted by this permission was not that described in schedule 2 part 3A of the General Permitted Development Order for the use or display for sale of motor vehicles.”
“1.The general rule is that in construing a planning permission which is clear, unambiguous and valid on its face, regard may only be had to the planning permission itself, including the conditions (if any) on it and the express reasons for those conditions…2. This rule excludes reference to the planning application as well as to other extrinsic evidence, unless the planning permission incorporates the application by reference. In that situation the application is treated as having become part of the permission. The reason for normally not having regard to the application is that the public should be able to rely on a document which is plain on its face without having to consider whether there is any discrepancy between the permission and the application…3. For incorporation of the application in the permission to be achieved, more is required than a mere reference to the application on the face of the permission. While there is no magic formula, some words sufficient to inform a reasonable reader that the application forms part of the permission are needed, such as ‘... in accordance with the plans and application ...’ or ‘... on the terms of the application ...’, and in either case those words appearing in the operative part of the permission dealing with the development and the terms in which permission is granted. These words need to govern the description of the development permitted… 4. If there is an ambiguity in the wording of the permission, it is permissible to look at extrinsic material, including the application, to resolve that ambiguity…”
“However, one notes that the way in which this Planning Authority chooses to frame its planning permissions is to set out near the beginning of the document a ‘description and location of application’, expressly stated to be such. It is clear that then embraces a description of the application. The content of the application is described immediately before the words indicating that permission has been granted.”