“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 164) …

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:

May 2016 - Code P3CO-164 (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” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “impacts of noise” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where an application for prior approval was submitted before 06/04/2016, and determined (by the Inspector) on or after 06/04/2016, and the Inspector does assess the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development”. [Note: In other words, the Inspector assessed the development against the post-06/04/2016 version of the GPDO]. (*)
    [Quote: “As of the 6th April 2016 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2016 requires consideration to be given under Part 3, Class O (Paragraph O.2) of the GPDO to whether the prior approval of an authority will be required as to the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development. As this amendment came into force during the appeal process the main parties were afforded an opportunity to provide further submissions on the implications of it in relation to the appeal.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector indicated that it was not necessary to assess the effect of the proposed development on a European site or a European offshore marine site (i.e. with reference to “The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010”). (*)
    [Quote: “I share the view of the appellant that the Regulations require a separate application to be submitted to enable the Council to consider the impact on the SPA and that this must be made prior to works commencing rather than prior to the determination of an application for prior approval. In effect they are separate processes and, therefore, the appeal before me does not fail for the reasons advanced by the Council in its second reason for refusal. It is not therefore, necessary for me to consider the impact of the proposal on the SPA as this is a matter for the Council in the first instance when considering an application under the Regulations. As such, I have not had regard to the submitted s106 Agreement.”].
  • 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: “Furthermore, whilst the Enzygo Ltd report indicates that pedestrian movements could fall below current levels as a result of the development, and this analysis is based on TRICs data, I am not satisfied this justifies the absence of a pedestrian crossing and continuous pavement. This is because I share the view of the Council and Local Highway Authority that the character of pedestrian movements would alter, with the real potential of vulnerable pedestrians walking along Osborn Way. As such, the net reduction in pedestrian movements overall does not justify the residual risk to pedestrian from the absence of a safe pedestrian route between Station Road and the appeal site.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular premises does constitute “commercial premises” for the purposes of Part 3 Class O. [Note: In other words, the noise impacts from this particular premises should be assessed (i.e. under paragraph O.2)].
    [Note: Premises is a railway line].
    [Quote: “The Council have raised concerns regarding the noise impact from the nearby railway line. When considering the definition of ‘commercial premises’ contained in the GPDO, I consider it reasonable to conclude that a railway line is a commercial premises capable of being used for a commercial undertaking. I have seen no substantive evidence before me to indicate otherwise. As such, the noise impacts that may arise from the railway line would need to be taken into account when considering the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development. As no such evidence has been submitted, this also weighs against the proposal.”].

May 2016 - Code P3CO-163 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2016 - Code P3CO-162 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2016 - Code P3CO-161 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2016 - Code P3CO-160 (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 30 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).