The "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 9 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

October 2014 - Code P3CO-051 (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 (short assessment).
• The post-06/04/2014 versions of Part 3 paragraph W(10)(b) do not allow the Council to have regard to the NPPF in relation to issues other than those specified by paragraph O.2 (i.e. other than “transport and highways impacts”, “contamination risks”, and “flooding risks”).
  [Note: Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
• For the purposes of the post-06/04/2014 versions of Part 3 paragraph W(10)(b), this appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the Council had “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”).
  [Note: Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].

October 2014 - Code P3CO-050 (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” = no assessment.
  - “flooding risks” = no 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: “I consider that the additional level of parking demand, at a minimum of either 2 or 8.5 extra spaces, which would be generated by the conversion, in this instance, would be significant.”].
• 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: “Policy DC32 of the DPD seeks to ensure that new development does not have an adverse impact on the functioning of the road hierarchy. The reason for this is that there is limited scope for tackling urban congestion by increasing road capacity. Therefore in the borough it is important to manage the efficiency and improvement of the network.”].

October 2014 - Code P3CO-049 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2014 - Code P3CO-048 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2014 - Code P3CO-047 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2014 - Code P3CO-046 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2014 - Code P3CO-045 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2014 - Code P3CO-044 (split decision):

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

October 2014 - Code P3CO-043 (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).