The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2015 - Code P3CO-105 (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” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal 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 approx 24m2].
  [Quote: “Although the proposed units would be compact they would be capable of providing all the facilities required for day-to-day private 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: “In respect of cycle parking and waste/recycling storage I consider it is necessary to impose conditions requiring their provision and retention in order that the development does not prejudice highway safety or the living conditions of the proposed or nearby residents.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed waste and recycling storage and concluded that this would be acceptable. (*)
  [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to waste and recycling storage].
  [Quote: “In respect of cycle parking and waste/recycling storage I consider it is necessary to impose conditions requiring their provision and retention in order that the development does not prejudice highway safety or the living conditions of the proposed or nearby residents.”].
• 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 bicycle parking, and waste and recycling storage].
• 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 relating to parking permits].

June 2015 - Code P3CO-104 (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: “There are some concerns relating to the survey in that it indicates some zones as having half spaces, occasionally also with half cars parked, and this is somewhat confusing. Regardless of this, the figures indicate very high stress levels in the vicinity of the appeal site, and any vehicles unable to park within the appeal site would find difficulty searching for convenient and practical on-street facilities. This would add to the parking stress in the area, to the detriment of traffic and highway safety.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the manoeuvring of vehicles on the site (e.g. entering, exiting, and moving within the site) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
  [Quote: “In conclusion on the issue of car parking facilities within the site, I have serious concerns that the provision of two spaces, as shown on the submitted plans, would result in potentially dangerous manoeuvres in order for cars to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
  [Quote: “In my opinion, to have cars manoeuvring in such close proximity to the main entrance to the dwelling would be dangerous, particularly since the dwellings are family-sized houses and children could be present.”].
• 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 proposal would conflict with Policy DM TP 8 of the DMP which requires development to avoid unacceptable impacts on on-street parking conditions.”].

June 2015 - Code P3CO-103 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2015 - Code P3CO-102 (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 21 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).