“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 171) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2016 - Code P3CO-171 (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).
    - “impacts of noise” = acceptable (minimal 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]. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “Paragraph O.2 of the GPDO makes clear that an application for prior approval under this Class may only be considered having regard to the transport and highway impacts of the development; contamination risks on the site; flooding risks on the site; and impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers.”].
  • 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: “The Appellant has conducted a parking survey. This has concluded that on the basis of unrestricted kerbline space, the proportion of parking spaces in use to those available on a Thursday and Friday night in October 2015 was about 78% and 83%. The Council has reviewed this information and has pointed out that some of the roads included would be beyond a reasonable walking distance and that others are subject to CPZ restrictions during events at Twickenham Stadium. Nevertheless, the Council has accepted that the parking stress levels would remain below the 90% that it sets as the appropriate limit for adverse impacts from overspill parking. This seems to me to indicate that even if the new occupiers were car owners they could park within the surrounding roads satisfactorily and that the Council’s parking policies would not be infringed. In the circumstances I conclude that the scheme would not have an unacceptable impact in terms of on-street parking conditions or highway safety.”].
  • 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 bicycle parking, waste and recycling storage, and the mix of residential units (i.e. number of bedrooms, etc)].

June 2016 - Code P3CO-170 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “impacts of noise” = acceptable (minimal 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: “At the time of the Council’s decision, Paragraph O.2 of the GPDO required local planning authorities, in determining applications for prior approval under Class O, to have regard solely to the transport and highway impacts of the development, contamination risks on site and flooding risks on site. Since the Council made their decision, Class O has been amended and there is now an additional requirement on local planning authorities to consider the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development. Both parties have provided representations on this matter and I have determined the appeal on this basis.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the development was not begun before the developer successfully completed the prior approval process.
    [Quote: “At the time of my site visit it was clear that some alterations had already taken place to facilitate the proposed change of use. Externally these included the insertion of a doorway to replace a window, the re-cladding of a gable feature with white UPVC, the replacement of all window frames with white UPVC and the insertion of a first floor window. These works were subject of a retrospective planning application, submitted after the Council’s decision on the application subject of this appeal, and which was approved on 31 March 2016. The Council considers these external works fall outside the scope of Class O and therefore the change of use cannot constitute permitted development. I agree Class O does not provide scope for operational development in association with a change of use. However, the external alterations are not fundamental to or solely related to residential use and they would not prevent the use of the building as an office. Indeed, at the time of my site visit it was apparent that the proposed change of use has not yet commenced as the building was vacant, there were no internal fixtures and fittings and some internal walls were still under construction. Accordingly, I consider the external works undertaken are distinguishable from the proposed development.”].

June 2016 - Code P3CO-169 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2016 - Code P3CO-168 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2016 - Code P3CO-167 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2016 - Code P3CO-166 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2016 - Code P3CO-165 (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 30 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).