“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 159) …

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:

March 2016 - Code P3CO-159 (2 x appeals 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: “The Institution of Highways Document ‘Guidance for Providing Journeys on Foot’ suggests that an acceptable commuter walking distance is 1km and the preferred maximum walking distance is 2km. As outlined above the site lies well within the 2km of a number of stations and therefore, despite the PTAL rating, I am satisfied that, in line with paragraph 30 of the Framework, there are sustainable transport options in this location as an alternative to car use.”].
  • 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 acceptable.
    [Note: Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “The site would provide adequate turning facilities such that vehicles, including delivery vehicles, would be able 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 bicycle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable. (*)
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to bicycle parking].
    [Quote: “In the interests of highway safety and to promote sustainable transport options it is necessary to require that agreement and implementation of a car parking management plan and a Green Travel Plan and provision of secure sheltered cycle parking.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the sustainability of the proposed development and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to sustainability].
    [Quote: “In the interests of highway safety and to promote sustainable transport options it is necessary to require that agreement and implementation of a car parking management plan and a Green Travel Plan and provision of secure sheltered cycle 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: Conditions relating to vehicle parking spaces (car parking management plan), bicycle parking, and green travel plan].

March 2016 - Code P3CO-158 (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 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)].
    [Quote: “The appellant contends that the appeal site was last in use as B1(a) offices, although specific dates of this use and when it ceased have not been provided. Nevertheless, the Council Officer’s report supports the appellant’s position on usage, and states that ‘the last known use of the upper floors of the building was as offices’. The submitted surveyors report also records the first floor as an ‘office area’. In addition, the Council Officer’s report does not raise concerns regarding the use of the property as offices on or before 29 May 2013, and its compliance with the GPDO in this regard. There is no substantive evidence before me that would lead me to question the appellant or the Council’s position on this matter. Accordingly, I therefore consider that the permitted development requirements in paragraph O.1(b) of the GPDO would be satisfied.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the lawful use of the site (i.e. the building and any land within its curtilage) is not B1(a). [Note: In other words, the proposed development would not comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class O].
    [Quote: “Article 3(5) of the GPDO requires that the B1(a) office use must also have been lawful. The Council has stated that there are no planning history records to confirm that the lawful use of the appeal property is B1(a). It is not clear how far these records date back, taking into account that the Council officer’s report indicates that the building dates from the 1960s. However, the appellant has not provided any substantive evidence to demonstrate B1(a) lawful use. Although it would be open to the appellant to apply for a lawful development certificate, at this stage it has not been shown that Article 3(5) has been satisfied. Accordingly, overall I therefore conclude that the scheme does not constitute permitted development under Class O of the GPDO”].

March 2016 - Code P3CO-157 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2016 - Code P3CO-156 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2016 - Code P3CO-155 (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 28 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).