The "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2017 - Code P3CO-206 (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” = no assessment.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a condition (on a previous planning permission), which restricts the use of the property but doesn’t refer to the GPDO, does remove permitted development rights under Part 3 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Note: Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector assessed 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”) and concluded that this would be unacceptable. (*)
  [Note: Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “Where it is intended to carry out development in reliance on the permission granted by a general development order, Regulation 74 of the Habitats Regulations requires an application to be made in writing to the appropriate nature conservation body for their opinion as to whether the development is likely to have a relevant effect. There is no evidence that the relevant notification has been made. I appreciate that that the Authority has adopted an approach, in consultation with Natural England, which sets out mitigation for residential development. It is on this basis that the appellant has sought to anticipate their advice. However, there is limited evidence that the mitigation offered in this case would be acceptable to the appropriate nature conservation body. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the Unilateral Undertaking discharges the pre-commencement condition under Regulations 73-76 of the Habitats Regulations. I conclude on this issue that the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of the GPDO with regard to being permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O.”].

February 2017 - Code P3CO-205 (2 x 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” = no assessment.
• The phrase “used for a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices)” within O.1(b) refers to the actual use of the building (i.e. rather than the lawful use of the building). (*)
  [Quote: “However, while I note the appeal decisions referred to by the appellant, the Order is not only concerned with the site’s lawful use. Although it seeks to prevent unlawful use triggering permitted development rights, it also requires the building’s use to be assessed both at the Relevant Date and at the time the application is being considered. While I note the appellant’s argument that there has been insufficient time for a material change of use to have taken place, in undertaking such an assessment, it is the actual use of the site with which the Order is concerned as opposed to its lawful use or whether any material change has taken place.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was not 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 not comply with O.1(b)].
  [Quote: “In this case there is a lack of information regarding the use of the site between 2007 and the present date. The application form indicates that it was last in use in 2011. However, the appellant has provided no evidence to indicate what its actual use was between 2007 and 2011 and, in the absence of such, I cannot be satisfied that the units were used for office purposes during this period. Accordingly, I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the site was actually used for a purpose falling in Class B1(a) on the Relevant Date.”].

February 2017 - Code P3CO-204 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2017 - Code P3CO-203 (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 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).