“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 213) …

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:

March 2017 - Code P3CO-213 (appeal allowed):

  • 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 the lawful use of the site (i.e. the building and any land within its curtilage) is B1(a). [Note: In other words, the proposed development would comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class O].
    [Quote: “From my observations at my site visit, the upper floors of the appeal building display all the characteristics of a conventional office where no members of the public have access, and are in my judgement in B1(a) office use. The upper floors also have their own independent access from an enclosed courtyard and parking area surrounded by office development. These buildings are numbered 1 to 8 Woolgate Court. The address used for this appeal, 3 Woolgate Court, is thus consistent with the numbering of the office development. The original planning permission for the Woolgate Court development (Council Ref: 4891374/F), advanced by the appellant with his written submissions, was described as, amongst other things, “retention of facades of 55 St Benedicts Street and redevelopment of remainder of site of 55/57 St Benedicts Street with three shops, with offices above and five three storey office units and associated parking…”. This in my judgement indicates that the shops and offices were originally built as separate uses. Indeed I find little evidence before me which suggests that the said retail units on the ground floor would have had ancillary offices above.”].
  • 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 bicycle parking, and waste and recycling storage].
  • 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 be completed within 3 years].

March 2017 - Code P3CO-212 (2 x appeal allowed):

  • 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 the building was 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 comply with O.1(b)].
    [Quote: “Given these uses were on the upper floors of the building and have extensive floor areas and, notwithstanding the recent significant redevelopment of the area more generally in recent years due to the London Olympic and Paralympic Games and otherwise, it is set some distance from a shopping street where members of the public may be passing and thus be attracted to visit the uses. Any use is unlikely to be principally for visiting members of the public. I have no evidence that the occupation of any of the other floors fell outside Sub-class B1(a), whether in another use class or as a sui generis use. While Honeywell Control Systems Limited may have been involved in manufacturing there is no evidence that such manufacturing took place on this site. Similarly, Universal Communications Limited was a market research firm, but there is no evidence that the public visited the site. The uses on this site were primary uses. I am therefore satisfied on the evidence in front of me that when each floor of the building was last in use it was for a use falling in Sub-class B1(a).”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the submitted information was sufficient to comply with the requirements of Part 3 paragraph W(2). (*)
    [Note: Submitted application form referred to 23 flats, but submitted proposed floor plans showed 24 flats.  Subsequently, an amended drawing was submitted (showing 23 flats), along with additional information about the use of the property].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the LPA did not notify the applicant of the decision (i.e. as to whether prior approval was given or refused) within the 56 day deadline. (*)
    [Note: The Inspector concluded that the application was received by the LPA on Mon 03/08/2015.  The Inspector counted this date as day 0, and therefore day 56 was Mon 28/09/2015].
    [Quote: “The issue is therefore whether the email of 09:16 hours on 28 September 2015 represented a formal notification of the decision of the LLDC to require prior approval and to refuse it. The email was signed with a first name only of the writer without giving his position within the LLDC or whether he had authority to make the statement. There is nothing to say under what authority the notification was being made, nor, specifically, did it refer to both of the applications, although this could be inferred from the overall email chain of which the email formed part. Given the legal importance of a formal decision notice it is imperative that this is clearly set out. A formal decision refusing approval needs to explain why the decision was being made as it was, and the text of the email does not do this. Looked at objectively I conclude that the email cannot represent the formal decisions of the LLDC notified to the applicant.”].

March 2017 - Code P3CO-211 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2017 - Code P3CO-210 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2017 - Code P3CO-209 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2017 - Code P3CO-208 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2017 - Code P3CO-207 (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 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).