“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 63) …

The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 1 additional appeal decision relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

January 2017 - Code P3CM-063 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = no assessment.
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impact of the change of use” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering issue M.2(1)(d), concluded that the building is not located in a key shopping area.
    [Quote: “The appeal property comprises a two storey mid terrace building having a vacant commercial shop unit on the ground floor, formerly used as a printing shop, with the first floor being in residential use. This part of Brownhill Road is a relatively long street comprised of predominantly terraced dwellings. The appeal property is located within a small parade of commercial units comprising shops, hot food takeaways and professional services that are sited on both sides of the road. I accept that the appeal property is not located within a key shopping area.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering issue M.2(1)(d), assessed the impact of the change of use on adequate provision of services (albeit only where there is a reasonable prospect of the building being used to provide such services) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “In this case, I have no evidence to determine the extent of the contribution that the existing use may, or may not, make to the provision of shops, services and facilities in the locality to meet the community’s day-to-day needs. Although the appellant suggests the property is unviable for any small businesses as it cannot demand a normal market rental value due to fixed costs, lack of footfall and a small amount of passing trade, I have no evidence to clearly demonstrate that this is the case. Given the importance that the Framework places on the loss of valued facilities and services, in this case I have no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposed change of use would not have a detrimental effect on the provision of such facilities and services to enable the community to meet its day-to-day needs.”].

Notes:

  • To view the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the Part 3 Class M 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 2 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).