The "GPDO Part 3 Class M - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 2 additional appeal decisions relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2017 - Code P3CM-065 (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” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
  - “design or external appearance” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering issue M.2(1)(d), concluded that the building is located in a key shopping area.
  [Quote: “Class M.2.(d) (ii) of the GPDO relates to where the building is located in a key shopping area, on the sustainability of that shopping area. A key shopping area is not defined within the GPDO. The building forms part of a large Shopping Parade comprised of around 45 units which, as was evident from my site visit, clearly plays an important role in meeting the shopping and service needs of the community that it serves. Although the matter is disputed, due to its scale and function I consider that it is a ‘key shopping area’. This view is supported by the fact that the shopping parade is worthy of protection by a development plan policy.”].
• 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 the sustainability of a key shopping area and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Quote: “The Council consider that the proposal would result in the loss of a shopping area use and would be detrimental to the retail function and vitality of the shopping parade and the retail floorspace in Croydon. However, whilst the proposal would result in the loss of a shopping area use, there is no convincing evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposal would be detrimental to the retail function and vitality of the shopping parade.”].
• 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 acceptable.
  [Quote: “Given that the applicability of the M.2.(d) (ii) test is disputed I have also considered the application against the M.2.(d) (i) test as detailed in paragraph 4 above. On the assumption that there is a reasonable prospect of the continued use of the premises for A1/A2 uses, in view of the range of A1 and A2 uses present in the area, I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the adequate provision of such services.”].
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
  [Quote: “Although there is no statutory obligation to decide a prior approval appeal under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Development Plan may contain material that is relevant to the planning judgments to be made on the subject matter of the prior approval and can therefore be taken into account as a form of evidence. As indicated above I have taken account of the plan’s designations in concluding that the appeal premises are in a key shopping area.”].

February 2017 - Code P3CM-064 (appeal dismissed):

• [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 M - 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 2 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).