“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 34) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2014 - Code P3CO-034 (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” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
    [Quote: “There would be no conflict with Policy T18 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan 2006 that seeks to ensure all proposals do not adversely affect road safety, and so the appeal should be allowed.”].

August 2014 - Code P3CO-033 (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” = acceptable (short assessment)
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when granting prior approval, decided that a particular condition (or s106 agreement) should be imposed.
    [Note: Conditions relating to contamination].
  • 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: Conditions relating to parking permits, management strategy for the private access road, bicycle parking, waste and recycling storage, and flood and water management].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “contamination risks on the site”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to conditions relating to the safety of occupiers].
    [Quote: “The site could be occupied by families for much greater periods of time than office hours. For this reason and in consideration of the evidence before me, I consider that contamination conditions would be reasonable and necessary”].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “The number of spaces would comply with the Council’s parking standards as set out in Policy DM J2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Development Management Local Plan 2013.”].

August 2014 - Code P3CO-032 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

August 2014 - Code P3CO-031 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

August 2014 - Code P3CO-030 (appeal allowed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

August 2014 - Code P3CO-029 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

August 2014 - Code P3CO-028 (appeal dismissed):

  • [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 Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals within the above document 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).