Article 4 restriction
Whether an Article 4 direction is or was in place that removed the relevant permitted development rights for the proposed change of use.
- Reference
article-4-restriction- Name
- Article 4 restriction
- Datatype
- enum
-
Cardinality
(Number expected)
- 1
- Codelist
- yes-no-not-applicable
- Entry date
- 2026-09-16
- Notes
-
The Class MA source form advises applicants answering Yes not to continue with this application route and to seek advice from the local planning authority.
Section 4b of the Class MA form asks this question for applications submitted before 1 August 2022 proposing a change of use from offices (Use Class E(g)(i), previously Use Class B1(a)) to dwellinghouses (Use Class C3).
The question asks whether an Article 4 direction is or was in place that removed these specific permitted development rights. It does not ask whether any Article 4 direction affects the site.
The source form offers Yes and No / Not relevant. This field distinguishes three answers:
yes: the question applies and a relevant Article 4 direction removed the specified permitted development rights.no: the question applies and no relevant Article 4 direction removed the specified permitted development rights.not-applicable: the application falls outside the question's stated scope.
In this field,
not-applicableis an explicit answer, not a missing response. It does not mean that no Article 4 direction affects the site or that the applicant is using the wrong form. The paper form's combined No / Not relevant answer alone cannot distinguishnofromnot-applicable.The question and its historical scope are retained. Whether it should be omitted for new applications is a separate application-level decision.
Source: Class MA application form, section 4b, version ECAB 2024.1.
Where this is used
Modules
This field is used in 1 module: