“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 184) …

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:

September 2016 - Code P3CO-184 (appeal allowed) (note: Inspector concluded that the appeal is “not valid”):

  • 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.
  • It is not possible to issue a “prior approval is not required” decision subject to conditions.

September 2016 - Code P3CO-183 (appeal allowed):

  • 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 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: “Furthermore, statutory declarations by the Managing Director of the previous owner of the premises and the Company Secretary of the current owners have been submitted. These statements set out that the office use was approved between 1984 and 2000 and that such use continued under the new ownership of the premises until the vacation of the building in 2015. This evidence also indicates that the building was in office use on 29 May 2013. The Council has submitted no evidence to refute this. The Council’s requirement for a certificate of lawful development is not the only method of demonstrating the use of a building. Whilst the requirement for such a certificate is based in legislation, so too are other circumstances including the passage of time. In this case more than 10 years have passed which would deem the use immune from enforcement action, whether or not a certificate of lawful use had been gained. Based on the information available to me, and on the balance of probabilities, I conclude that the premises the subject of the prior approval application were in B1(a) use on 29 May 2013, or when last in use prior to that date. It is further concluded that the application is therefore for development that would be permitted under Class O of the GPDO.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the LPA did not notify the applicant of the decision (i.e. as to whether prior approval was given or refused) within the 56 day deadline. (*)
    [Note: The Inspector concluded that the application was received by the LPA on Tue 18/08/2015.  The Inspector counted this date as day 0, and therefore day 56 was Tue 13/10/2015].
    [Quote: “Therefore, based on the information provided and having regard to the wording and requirements of the Order, I conclude that the 56 days should be considered as starting from the acknowledged date of the Council’s receipt of the application, 18 August 2015, and would therefore have expired on 13 October 2015. In the absence of a written notice under Paragraph W(11) by that date, prior approval is deemed to have been granted.”].

September 2016 - Code P3CO-182 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2016 - Code P3CO-181 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2016 - Code P3CO-180 (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).