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

November 2016 - Code P3CO-192 (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” = 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: “There is no dispute that the premises comprise a single planning unit, but the Council argue that the plumbing business amounts to a mixed use, with office (B1(a)) use at the front and storage (B8) use to the rear. If this is the case, the provisions of Class O would not apply. However, by far the most significant activities taking place in the premises are office activities. All the members of staff based in the building are office/managerial staff, no members of staff are dedicated to supervise or operate the storage uses. The materials and parts stored are solely used by the plumbing business itself, with no supplies being sold on to other businesses or the public. The miscellaneous materials and parts are supplied to, or collected by, field staff when reporting into the office before and after individual jobs. As such the storage in the premises forms an integral part of the office activities for administering the business rather than being a separate business function. Under half the space in the premises is used for storage and only one room is dedicated for the purpose, the other also being used regularly by office staff to make refreshments and access the toilet. The storage use in two rooms is therefore ancillary or incidental to the primary office use of the premises as a whole. As such, the use of the premises on 29 May 2013 or when last in use falls within Class B1 (a) (offices) and the proposal therefore comprises permitted development under Class O.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed bicycle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable. (*)
  [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to bicycle parking].
  [Quote: “In relation to the matters listed in paragraph O.2 of the Order, three conditions are necessary. These require the provision of secure covered parking facilities for one bicycle in the interests of sustainable transport and two conditions to ensure possible sources of contamination are identified and properly dealt with before and during construction.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “contamination risks on the site”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating the safety of occupiers].
  [Quote: “In relation to the matters listed in paragraph O.2 of the Order, three conditions are necessary. These require the provision of secure covered parking facilities for one bicycle in the interests of sustainable transport and two conditions to ensure possible sources of contamination are identified and properly dealt with before and during construction.”].
• 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: “There is no dispute that the proposal would meet all the requirements listed in paragraphs O.1(a) and O.1(c) to O.1(g) of the 2015 Order for permitted development under Class O. In addition, there is no dispute that prior approval is not required for matters (a) to (c) in paragraph O.2 of the Order subject to three conditions being imposed.”].
• 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 relating to bicycle parking, and contamination (including asbestos survey)].

November 2016 - Code P3CO-191 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2016 - Code P3CO-190 (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 "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 32 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).