The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

September 2014 - Code P3CO-039 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “contamination risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “flooding risks” = unacceptable (detailed 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 “flooding risks on the site”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
  [Quote: “I am not persuaded that the FRA satisfactorily shows that the risk posed to occupiers of the building by flooding would be at an acceptable level”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “flooding risks on the site”, assessed whether the proposed development would increase flooding risks elsewhere and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Quote: “There is nothing to suggest that the proposal would lead to increased surface water flooding or that it would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere”].
• 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: “As such, the proposal would not accord with Southend on Sea Core Strategy policies KP1 or KP2 or paragraph 103 of the Framework which require development to avoid, or appropriately, mitigate risk from flooding.”].

September 2014 - Code P3CO-038 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “contamination risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal 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)].

September 2014 - Code P3CO-037 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2014 - Code P3CO-036 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2014 - Code P3CO-035 (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 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).