The "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:
July 2014 - Code P3CO-016 (appeal allowed):
- This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
- “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
- “contamination risks” = no assessment.
- “flooding risks” = no assessment. - This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was used as B1(a) on 29/05/2013 or (if not in use on that date) when it was last in use. [Note: In other words, the proposed development would comply with O.1(b)].
- 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.
[Quote: “no need for the level of parking sought by the Council”]. - 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: Condition or s106 agreement relating to parking permits]. - This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a condition (on a previous planning permission), which restricts the use of the property but doesn’t refer to the GPDO, does not remove permitted development rights under Part 3 of the GPDO.
July 2014 - Code P3CO-015 (appeal dismissed):
- This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
- “transport and highways impacts” = unacceptable (detailed 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 unacceptable.
[Quote: “Unlawful or indiscriminate parking ... would undoubtedly cause congestion with a consequent adverse effect on vehicular and pedestrian safety”].
July 2014 - Code P3CO-014 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
July 2014 - Code P3CO-013 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
July 2014 - Code P3CO-012 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
July 2014 - Code P3CO-011 (appeal allowed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
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 18 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).