The basement, ground and first floors of a building were in retail use. The freeholder sought to rely on Class F of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO to convert the first floor to residential use. The retail tenant argued that the scheme would not involve a ‘mixed use’ for retail purposes and as a flat as required by the Order. The flat would be entirely independent of the retail use and ‘mixed use’ should be construed to mean a composite use, since any other construction would render the phrase otiose. Previous decision letters had applied this construction. HHJ Sycamore disagreed. He held that it was impossible for a ‘flat’ to be part of any composite use, since a ‘flat’ had to comprise entirely self-contained accommodation.
Richard Langham appeared for the claimant, on a public access basis.