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:
April 2017 - Code P3CM-068 (appeal allowed):
- 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” = no assessment.
- 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.
[Note: The proposed conversion would result in a new smaller retail (etc) unit].
[Quote: “I observed a mix of uses along this part of Hamlet Court Road, including some other Class A2 units. I also note that a number of units previously in Class A1 use on the opposite side of Hamlet Court Road have been converted to a residential use, including Nos 28, 30, 38 and 42. The principle of some residential use at ground floor level along this part of Hamlet Court Road has therefore already been established. In addition, the Council has not provided me with any compelling evidence that there are not a sufficient number of other units in a Class A2 use in the wider area, including along Hamlet Court Road to the north of Canewdon Road, which would maintain an adequate provision of such services for the needs of the local community. Furthermore, part of the unit would continue to provide an A2 use. Consequently, I am not persuaded that the change to a residential use would have an undesirable impact on the adequate provision of Class A2 services in the area.”].
- 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 GPDO does not appear to define the term ‘key shopping area’. The Council’s Officer’s Report and Appeal Statement do not elaborate in any great detail on what it considers such a definition should entail. I also note that when assessing the prior approval notification in respect of No 28, the Council considered that as that unit was in a Secondary Shopping Frontage rather than Primary Shopping Frontage, as defined by the Council’s emerging Development Management Document at the time, it could not reasonably be said to be within a key shopping area. This seems to me to be a reasonable approach to take and as such, I do not consider the unit the subject of this appeal could reasonably be said to be within a key shopping area. As such, there is no specific requirement for me to consider the sustainability of the shopping area. Nevertheless, as I have found that the change of use would not have an undesirable impact on the adequate provision of Class A2 services in the area, it is unlikely to result in any harm in this regard in any case.”].
- 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 relating to waste and recycling storage].
- When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
[Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
[Quote: “On this basis, I find no conflict with Policy DM13- Shopping Frontage Management outside the Town Centre, of the DMD; and Policy CP2- Town Centre and Retail Development, of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy Development Plan Document 1 2007.”].
- 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).