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:

November 2014 - Code P3CO-060 (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).
• 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 such I consider any increase in the required amount of parking would be negligible given the nature of the proposal and the site’s sustainable location”].
• 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].

November 2014 - Code P3CO-059 (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).
• 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: “Even if future residents did own their own vehicles, then the evidence suggests that there is adequate space available nearby for parking”].
• 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: Condition relating to vehicle parking space].
• 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].
• 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 proposals would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and with Policy DMTP 8 of the Local Plan.”].

November 2014 - Code P3CO-058 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2014 - Code P3CO-057 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2014 - Code P3CO-056 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2014 - Code P3CO-055 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2014 - Code P3CO-054 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2014 - Code P3CO-053 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2014 - Code P3CO-052 (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 "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).