“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 179) …

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:

August 2016 - Code P3CO-179 (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” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
  • 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 B1(a). [Note: In other words, the proposed development would comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class O].
    [Quote: “The Council has not contested the appeal case beyond what is set out in the original delegated report. From my visit to the property, the internal arrangements suggest the building would have had two separate parts. The ground and upper floor parts, accessed by the separate door to that serving the ‘shop front’ part, could well have had the separate B1 use, not providing services principally to visiting members of the public, as claimed by the appellant. The correspondence submitted, including a Statutory Declaration, provides evidence which would support the B1 use. The Council has not contested this matter further and therefore I accept this advice to be correct.”].
  • 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 existing use would have generated parking demand, mainly during the day. I agree that a residential use would alter this and result in a greater demand during evenings and weekends when parking stress by residents within the surrounding controlled parking zone would be highest. This proposal offers no on-site parking provision to meet the Council’s standards which would otherwise mitigate for the additional parking demand within the surrounding streets. However, the permitted development right allows the principal of the change of use sought. I do not consider the four one-bedroom flats would result in a material increase or material change in the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site such that the transport and highway impacts of this development would be severe. The reasons given by the Council for not granting prior approval are therefore not adequately substantiated. Consequently the transport and highway impacts of this proposal would not cause it to be unacceptable.”].
  • 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: Condition requiring compliance with the approved drawings].
  • 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 not 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 pre-06/04/2016 version of the GPDO]. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “The provisions of Class O of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO 2015) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development on the basis of transport and highway impacts, contamination risks on site and flooding risks on the site.”].

August 2016 - Code P3CO-178 (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]. (*)
    [Quote: “Since the Council determined the application, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) has been revised by an amending statutory instrument. As well as changing the previous temporary right into a permanent right under Class O of the GPDO, the amendment introduced a requirement for the applicant to apply for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the local planning authority will be required in relation to the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development, in addition to the previous requirement to assess the proposed development on transport and highways impacts, contamination and flooding risks on site.”].
  • 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: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to vehicle parking].
    [Quote: “From my visit to the site and the surrounding streets, I do not consider that the shortfall of two spaces against the Council’s maximum standards would result in a material shortage of off-street parking provision, or unsustainable pressure on the existing on-street parking in the area. Nor has it been demonstrated that there would be a harmful effect on highway safety as a result of any additional, on-street 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: Condition relating to vehicle parking spaces].
  • 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 sustainable drainage and water recycling scheme].
  • 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 not conflict with the Framework or with saved UDP Policies AM7 and AM14 which require development not to prejudice highway safety and to accord with the Council’s parking standards.”].

August 2016 - Code P3CO-177 (appeal dismissed):

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

August 2016 - Code P3CO-176 (1 x appeal dismissed, 1 x 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).