The "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval 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:

July 2016 - Code P3CO-175 (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.
  - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was not 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 not comply with O.1(b)].
  [Quote: “There are views expressed by the appellant and the Council in relation to what might be the correct test of the likelihood of the last use of the building being within Use Class B1(a). I have considered both points of view and the various submissions which are intended to support those views. From my perspective, there appears to be a significant absence of evidence relating to the use of the premises after 1997 and up until it is said to have been last used in 2000. Added to this is the lack of certainty as to the exact nature of the uses that were in existence when the building was occupied. Therefore, my view is that the submissions made do not demonstrate that the building was used as offices with Use Class B1(a) when it was last used prior to 29 May 2013.”].

July 2016 - Code P3CO-174 (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.
  - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was not 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 not comply with O.1(b)].
  [Quote: “However, and in any event, the evidence of most significance to my assessment is a response [Dated 9 October 2013] to a planning contravention notice (the PCN) provided by the Council. This asked various questions about the use and occupation of the appeal units and various other units within the complex of buildings. The replies given state that the appeal units were converted about 5 years ago from piggeries/horse boxes into private dwellings, and that council tax rather than business rates had been paid by their tenants. Moreover, names and dates of occupation of the current and previous tenants are provided, indicating that both of the appeal units were occupied by tenants on 29th May 2013. The appellant has not sought to retract or otherwise comment on the PCN responses, nor has he provided evidence of any office use. It follows that the very clear balance of the evidence before me is that the appeal units were in use on 29th May 2013, and that use was not a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices). I therefore conclude that the proposal would not comply with the limitation at paragraph O.1(b).”].
• The phrase “used for a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices)” within O.1(b) refers to the actual use of the building (i.e. rather than the lawful use of the building). (*)
  [Quote: “The appellant contends that the effect of the enforcement action taken by the Council is that the appeal units have had to go back to the previous use as offices, and that the proposal thus complies with the requirements of Class O. However, whilst the requirements of the enforcement notice are not in dispute, the appellant’ s position does not take account of the clear terms of paragraph O.1. The requirement here is that, at the specified times, the subject building was used for a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices). What must be demonstrated, therefore, is that the appeal units were in actual B1(a) use. It is insufficient to show merely that B1(a) use was authorised by a planning permission or would otherwise have been lawful, or that other uses would not have been lawful. Whether there has been actual B1(a) use is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence before me.”].

July 2016 - Code P3CO-173 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2016 - Code P3CO-172 (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 "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website 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).