“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 31 additional appeal decisions (total = 101) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 31 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

Note: This update contains a relatively large number of appeal decisions, which has significantly increased the size of the Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document. As such, instead of reading through this update, it's recommended that members open the above document and browse the topics within the "Reference Section", as the latter indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.

May 2015 - Code P3CO-101 (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” = 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 acceptable.
    [Quote: “Overall, it seems to me that it would be unlikely that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would own a car. I therefore conclude that there would be no adverse transport or highway impacts or conflict with development plan policies.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed bicycle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable. (*)
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to bicycle parking].
    [Quote: “The provision of cycle parking facilities would encourage the use of transport other than the private car.”].
  • 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 requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and conditions relating to contamination, construction method statement, and bicycle parking].
  • 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 requiring the development to begin within 3 years, and conditions relating to waste and recycling storage, and 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: “I therefore conclude that there would be no adverse transport or highway impacts or conflict with development plan policies.”].

April 2015 - Code P3CO-100 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) concluded that the resulting site would constitute “a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses)”.
    [Note: Each of the residential units would have a floor area of 18m2-22m2].
    [Quote: “Each of the residential units in the proposed development would be entirely self-contained, and would provide living space together with pre-fitted storage space, a kitchenette and shower/WC facilities. Each residential unit would also be fitted with a raising bed system, whereby the bed is mechanically raised to ceiling level on guide rails when not in use to provide the living space. [...] Consequently, notwithstanding the modest floor area, I am satisfied that the proposed residential units would have the ability to afford to those who use them the facilities required for day-to-day domestic existence.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed bicycle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable. (*)
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to bicycle parking].
    [Quote: “The National Planning Policy Framework encourages the provision of sustainable modes of transport, and I therefore accept that the provision of cycle parking is necessary.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, indicated that it was not necessary to assess waste and recycling storage. (*)
    [Quote: “The Council has also suggested a condition that the waste and recycling storage arrangement shown on the application drawings is provided prior to first occupation. However, these arrangements are not reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval and, in accordance with Paragraph W of the GPDO, therefore cannot be the subject of a condition.”].
  • 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 bicycle parking].
  • 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, and waste and recycling storage].

April 2015 - Code P3CO-099 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = no assessment.
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  • 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 remove permitted development rights under Part 3 of the GPDO. (*)

April 2015 - Code P3CO-098 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short 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 granting prior approval, decided that a particular condition (or s106 agreement) should not be imposed.
    [Note: Conditions relating to parking permits, bicycle parking, and waste and recycling storage].

April 2015 - Code P3CO-097 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-096 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-095 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-094 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-093 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-092 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-091 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-090 (appeal allowed):

[NOTE: THIS APPEAL WAS RECOVERED AND DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE]

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-089 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-088 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-087 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CO-086 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-085 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-084 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-083 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-082 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-081 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-080 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-079 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-078 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-077 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-076 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-075 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-074 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-073 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-072 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CO-071 (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 21 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).