“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 195) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - 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:

December 2016 - Code P3CO-195 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impacts of noise” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Note: Inspector concluded that this issue could be overcome by a Grampian condition].
    [Quote: “Whilst the evidence before me suggests that some doubt may be cast on the ability of the appellants to legally undertake the works to the road/verge/footway, the PPG sets a stringent test and my view is that it could not be said that “there are no prospects at all” of the actions being performed. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to consider the imposition of such a condition in this case, had the appeal been acceptable in all other respects. In addition, on the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that a suitable gradient on the proposed footway could be achieved. [...] The conditions attached to Class O at O.2-(1) state that development under Class O is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development the developer must apply to the planning authority for a determination as to whether their prior approval is required as to (a) transport and highways impacts of the development, plus other matters. The appellants suggest that this wording, particularly when seen along with the wording of the other matters, restricts consideration and prevents the Council (and others) from considering how the existing highway will affect the proposed development. In short, I disagree; in my view the “traffic and highways impacts of the development” can legitimately include the consideration of the use of the highway by future residents and their safety as well as the safety of others, when doing so. If the proposal would give rise to conditions which are not safe on the highway (and it appears that the appellants agree that it would, in the absence of the suggested works), then this is covered by the “traffic and highways impacts of the development”. Even when looking at the other sections of the GPDO as suggested by the appellants, I find that their view is not supported.”].

December 2016 - Code P3CO-194 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2016 - Code P3CO-193 (appeal dismissed):

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


  • 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 32 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).