“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 189) …

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:

October 2016 - Code P3CO-189 (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: “Planning permission was granted on 30 December 1998 for the change of use of No 42 from a hairdressers (Class A1) to an office (Class B1). However, the Council states that No 42 is in Class A2 use, and has been so since at least 2005. This statement is based on information from the Valuation Office Agency and the Council’s Business Rates Department. The Council argues that the A2 use is now lawful, having operated for 10 years. However, that would not have been the case in May 2013, as the use would only have existed for approximately eight years. In any case, the Council has not submitted any substantive documentary evidence in respect of the stated A2 use. I note the Council’s contention that a 2013 planning application shows both units as Class A2. The appellant states, however, that the application refers to the garage/store at No 40, and that the use classes shown for the units at Nos 40 and 42 were a mistake on the part of the architect. In view of the lack of corroborative evidence with regard to the A2 use and its lawfulness, I am able to afford little weight to this circumstance. As there is no compelling evidence of an intervening or different use since the grant of the 1998 permission, I am satisfied that the last lawful use of No 42 was as a B1 office use. That being the case, I find that the permitted development right applies, and has been complied with. I therefore find that the proposal is permitted development under Class O of the GPDO.”].

October 2016 - Code P3CO-188 (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 (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: “The Council’s concern is single faceted in relation to the possible noise impacts that might occur having regard to the relatively close proximity of other commercial premises to the appeal building and the presence of plant and machinery located outside the rear of one of those premises that shares the same courtyard and which faces the appeal building. The Council considers that this aspect cannot be fully resolved to its satisfaction without a noise assessment report being submitted that demonstrates that noise levels will be within acceptable limits. However, it is my understanding that existing businesses within the courtyard are all B1 uses, which by definition are uses that are able to be accommodated in residential areas. Moreover, the remaining buildings are either shops or residential properties. I do not consider that despite the close juxtaposition of B1 or A1 uses to the appeal premises these types of uses will generate unacceptable levels of noise.”].
  • 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: Conditions requiring the development to be completed within 3 years, and requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and condition relating to details of windows and doors].
  • 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 waste and recycling storage].

October 2016 - Code P3CO-187 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2016 - Code P3CO-186 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2016 - Code P3CO-185 (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 31 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).