The "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 1 additional appeal decision relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

July 2014 - Code P3CO-010 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short assessment).
  - “contamination risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed vehicle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Note: Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “As there would be no harm to the transport network or highway safety from the vehicle parking, there would be no justification for seeking to prevent, through a legal agreement, new residents obtaining parking permits”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, indicated that it was not necessary to assess bicycle parking. (*)
  [Note: Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “these matters appear to relate to convenience only, rather than an impact on transport and highway”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the impact of delivery and servicing vehicles and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Note: Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The parking controls in the area should ensure that construction and service related traffic would have to park in appropriate places at appropriate times and there is no evidence that service or construction traffic would impact negatively on the transport network or safety of users of the highway”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the impact of construction vehicles and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Note: Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The parking controls in the area should ensure that construction and service related traffic would have to park in appropriate places at appropriate times and there is no evidence that service or construction traffic would impact negatively on the transport network or safety of users of the highway”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the impact of construction vehicles and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Note: Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The parking controls in the area should ensure that construction and service related traffic would have to park in appropriate places at appropriate times and there is no evidence that service or construction traffic would impact negatively on the transport network or safety of users of the highway”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, indicated that it was not necessary to assess waste and recycling storage. (*)
  [Quote: “these matters appear to relate to convenience only, rather than an impact on transport and highway”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when granting prior approval, decided that a particular condition (or s106 agreement) should not be imposed.
  [Note: s106 agreement relating to construction management plan and servicing management plan, and condition relating to bicycle parking].
• For the purposes of the 30/05/2013-05/04/2014 version of Part 3 paragraph W(10)(b), this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the Council had not “behaved unreasonably” by assessing an application for prior approval against issues other than those specified by paragraph O.2 (i.e. other than “transport and highways impacts”, “contamination risks”, and “flooding risks”). (*)

Notes:

• To view the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website for no extra cost.
• Any of the above conclusions marked with a "(*)" contradict other appeal decisions. The "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.
• The above document also includes 16 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).