Reverting to a previous use after a permitted change

Changing use under permitted development is easy to do and hard to undo. Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015 grants a right to change from one use to another. It does not generally grant a matching right to change back. Once the new use has begun, it is the lawful use of the building, and reverting to the previous use is itself a change of use that needs either a permitted development right, a planning permission, or evidence that the old use never stopped.

Occupiers get this wrong because the language of the Order sounds symmetrical. It is not. Ask the question before you implement a permitted change, not after the tenant has left.

Why some changes are reversible and others are not

Three different mechanisms produce something that looks like a right to revert, and only two of them are real.

The first is statutory. Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 deals with resumption of a previous use where the permission that authorised the new use was granted for a limited period. When the time limited permission expires, the use that was normally carried on before it can resume without a fresh permission. That is a genuine reversion right, and it is why temporary permissions are drafted the way they are.

The second is the temporary use right in Part 4 of Schedule 2, which allows land to be used for other purposes for a limited number of days in each calendar year. The whole structure of that class assumes the land goes back to its normal use afterwards, so no separate permission is needed to resume.

The third is the assumption that because the Order permitted a change one way, it permits it the other way. That is the one that is not real, unless the class itself says so.

Classes that allow reversion, and classes that do not

Read the class you used, and read its conditions. Some classes in Part 3 attach conditions that preserve the position of the previous use or limit the duration of the permitted change. Others do not, and in that case the new use stands indefinitely.

Two widely used classes are worth being clear about. A change from commercial, business and service use to dwellinghouses under Class MA produces a residential use with no right to return to the former use. Going back from residential to a commercial use requires planning permission, and in a town centre or an industrial area that application is not guaranteed.

The same applies to the conversion of an agricultural building to a dwelling under Class Q. There is no right to revert to agricultural use, and the Order also restricts later agricultural permitted development on the unit where a Class Q conversion has been carried out, so check the conditions attaching to both classes before relying on either.

A further trap sits outside Part 3 altogether. Permitted development rights do not authorise development that conflicts with a condition on an existing permission, which is the point covered by development contrary to a condition and article 3(4). A unit consented with a condition restricting its use to a named class cannot be changed under the Order at all, in either direction.

Time limits on the right to revert

Where a right to revert does exist, it usually comes with a deadline, and the deadline is the part that catches people out.

A time limited permission produces a reversion right at the end of the period, not years later. If the building is left vacant for a long time after expiry, an argument arises about whether the previous use was still the use normally carried on, and the longer the gap the weaker the argument.

Where a class permits a change for a stated period, the right to resume the former use attaches to that period. Implement the change, let the period run out and continue the new use, and the position becomes a question of fact about which use is lawful.

Keep the dates. The date the permitted change was first implemented, the date the new use began, the date it ceased. Those three dates decide most arguments, and they are impossible to reconstruct three years later from memory.

Evidence that the former use subsisted

Reversion arguments are won on paper. The question is almost always whether the previous use was abandoned, interrupted or continuing, and the council will not take your word for it.

Useful evidence, in rough order of weight:

• Business rates records showing the rateable use and the period of assessment.
• Tenancy agreements, licences and leases with dates and permitted user clauses.
• Audited accounts or VAT returns showing trading from the premises.
• Dated photographs of the interior in use, and signage.
• Utility bills and waste collection contracts tied to the activity.
• Statutory declarations from occupiers, employees or suppliers, which carry weight but rarely on their own.

Where the previous use continued alongside the new one, say so and evidence the overlap. A building with a continuing lawful use that was never displaced is a different case from one that changed completely and is now changing back.

Where building works defeat the reversion

Physical change can extinguish the old use even where the paperwork looks sound.

Where a site is wholly redeveloped with a new building, the courts have treated the planning unit as beginning again with no established use, so previous use rights do not survive the redevelopment. That is the principle most often forgotten by owners who assume use rights attach to the land regardless of what is built on it.

Short of full redevelopment, the works themselves can make resumption impossible in fact. An industrial unit converted to flats with new floors, stairs and party walls cannot resume as a workshop without further works, and those works may need permission of their own. Equally, a related principle from case law is that planning permission cannot simply be abandoned by inactivity, so the analysis has to look at what has actually happened to the building rather than at the owner's intentions.

The practical test is a blunt one. Could the previous use restart tomorrow in the building as it now stands? If not, treat reversion as a new application rather than as a right.

Lawful development certificates for the reverted use

The only formal way to confirm that a use is lawful is a certificate. Section 191 of the 1990 Act covers an existing use, operation or breach of condition. Section 192 covers a proposed use or operation.

For reversion, section 192 is usually the better route, because it answers the question before money is spent. Submit the planning history, the dates, the evidence that the former use subsisted, and the legal basis on which you say the resumption is lawful. A short planning statement setting out the chronology makes the application far easier for an officer to approve.

A certificate is not a formality. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and an application made on thin evidence can produce a refusal that is then quoted back at you for years. If the evidence is weak, consider whether a planning application for the use is the safer course, since the tests are different and a refusal on planning merits does not fix the lawfulness position against you.

Keeping the record that proves it

Three habits make reversion arguments winnable. Keep every prior approval and permission with its decision notice and plans, in one place, for the life of the building. Record the date each use began and ended, in writing, at the time. And photograph the premises in use, with dates, before any change.

Owners who do this can usually establish the position in a week. Owners who do not spend months assembling declarations, and sometimes find that enforcement time limits for permitted development breaches are the only thing standing between them and a notice. Where a prior approval application is needed for a change in the first place, the procedure and its screening requirements are set out in prior approval applications and screening.

This is general guidance, not legal advice, and a lawful development certificate is the only formal way to confirm that works or uses are lawful. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which documents a change of use application is likely to need. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.