“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 202) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

January 2017 - Code P3CO-202 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector indicated that it was not necessary to assess the effect of the proposed development on a European site or a European offshore marine site (i.e. with reference to “The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010”). (*)
    [Quote: “The Council has also raised the issue of the site’s location relative to the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and the requirement for a financial contribution to mitigate against harm that would otherwise be caused to that area by the proposed development. No such contribution has been made. However, the Council is satisfied that this concern may be addressed by a separate process and no evidence has been given to the contrary.”].

January 2017 - Code P3CO-201 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed vehicle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “Paragraph 32 of the Framework advises that development should only be refused on transport grounds if the residual cumulative impacts of the proposal are severe. Taking all of the above matters into account, I am satisfied that by virtue of the site’s accessible location, there would be adequate levels of parking either on site or with the potential for any further demand to be accommodated in nearby long stay car parks. Residents would be prevented from parking on nearby streets due to the unobtainability of inner city parking permits. Consequently, there is no firm evidence before me to suggest that the proposal would have a severe adverse impact on highway safety.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the manoeuvring of vehicles on the site (e.g. entering, exiting, and moving within the site) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “I note the concerns raised in the officer’s report about the parking spaces to the rear of the north wing. However, no concern has been raised by the Highway Authority about the layout of the spaces, which I consider would be awkward but not unusable, and their availability for residents of the proposed apartments could be secured by condition.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the impact of delivery and servicing vehicles and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to delivery and servicing vehicles].
    [Quote: “It is necessary to impose conditions relating to cycle parking, motor cycle and scooter parking, delivery arrangements, refuse collection arrangements, and parking allocation in the interests of highway safety.”].
  • 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: “It is necessary to impose conditions relating to cycle parking, motor cycle and scooter parking, delivery arrangements, refuse collection arrangements, and parking allocation in the interests of highway safety.”].
  • 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: Condition requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and conditions relating to vehicle parking spaces, manoeuvring area, and parking management plan (including full details of bicycle parking, motorcycle and scooter parking, arrangements for deliveries, arrangements for refuse collection, and the allocation of parking spaces)].
  • 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 requiring the development to begin within 3 years, and conditions relating to the security / crime / amenity / public safety aspects of vehicle and bicycle parking].

January 2017 - Code P3CO-200 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2017 - Code P3CO-199 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2017 - Code P3CO-198 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2017 - Code P3CO-197 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2017 - Code P3CO-196 (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 32 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).