“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 71) …

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

May 2017 - Code P3CM-071 (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), concluded that the building is located in a key shopping area.
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “I therefore conclude that the proposal would not result in harm to the sustainability of the [Hillingdon Heath Local Centre] and adequate provision of shops therein.”].
  • 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.
    [Note: Inspector awarded an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “From my visit, which took place in the early afternoon, it was apparent that the HHLC comprised of a variety of shops and services. Whilst a small number of the units appeared to be closed, many were open and trading, giving the impression of a busy and vibrant centre. I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the proposed loss of the retail unit, a convenience store which no longer appears to be operational, would result in harm to the overall sustainability of the shopping area or the adequate provision of shopping services. Indeed it was apparent that there are a number alternative convenience outlets in very close proximity to the site. These include a unit located only a few metres away within the same terraced block and similar provision at nearby petrol filling stations all of which would continue to be easily accessible to nearby residents.”].
  • 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: Inspector awarded an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “From my visit, which took place in the early afternoon, it was apparent that the HHLC comprised of a variety of shops and services. Whilst a small number of the units appeared to be closed, many were open and trading, giving the impression of a busy and vibrant centre. I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the proposed loss of the retail unit, a convenience store which no longer appears to be operational, would result in harm to the overall sustainability of the shopping area or the adequate provision of shopping services. Indeed it was apparent that there are a number alternative convenience outlets in very close proximity to the site. These include a unit located only a few metres away within the same terraced block and similar provision at nearby petrol filling stations all of which would continue to be easily accessible to nearby residents.”].
  • 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: Conditions requiring the development to be completed within 3 years, and requiring compliance with the approved drawings].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)

May 2017 - Code P3CM-070 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2017 - Code P3CM-069 (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 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).