“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 74) …

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:

June 2017 - Code P3CM-074 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impact of the change of use” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (short assessment).
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not the “starting point”. [Note: In some of these appeal decisions it’s not clear whether the Inspector concludes that 1) the development plan is a material consideration but not the “starting point” or 2) the development plan is not a material consideration]. (*)
    [Quote: “The Council are concerned that in the absence of marketing evidence being provided to demonstrate that there is a lack of demand for this retail floor space, which is a requirement of Policy DM4.7 of Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Policies 2007 (DMP), then the premises has a reasonable prospect of being used for those purposes and the proposal would impact on the provision of A1, A2 and sui generis uses in the area. However, this is not an application to which S38 (6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 applies. Consequently, although it is a material consideration that the Council wish to support and protect dispersed shops outside designated town centre and local shopping areas, prior approval is only required for the specific grounds set out in paragraph M 2 (1)(d)(i) of the GPDO, and not whether the proposal would comply with the specific terms of Policy DM4.7.”].
  • 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: “Balls Pond Road is a major road and the appeal site has excellent access to public transport, with a PTAL score of 6a. I recognise that there may not be a wide range of A1/A2 uses within the terrace row where the appeal premise is located; however Dalston Junction and the local centres described above are only a few minutes’ walk away. The shops and services they provide are equally accessible to local residents as the appeal site is, including to those residents who reside on Culford and De Beauvoir Roads. On this basis, I am satisfied that there is an adequate level of provision of shops and services available to meet the needs of local residents.”].
  • 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: “There are already a number of other residential properties at ground floor level within this row, and overall this dispersed shopping area does not display an active frontage or function as a key shopping area.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed bicycle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable. (*)
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to bicycle parking].
    [Quote: “A condition is also necessary to secure cycle parking to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering “the design or external appearance of the building”, assessed waste and recycling storage and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to waste and recycling storage].
    [Quote: “I have imposed a condition to secure appropriate refuse disposal facilities to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed vehicle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “I have taken into consideration the Council’s policy in relation to ‘car free’ housing, and their suggested condition to secure this. However, the Council has not provided a reason as to why the suggested condition is necessary in particular this case. The site lies in a sustainable location close to shops and services, and with excellent access to public transport. Furthermore, the existing use of the site as a retail shop would be likely to generate traffic. I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that there is a particular issue with parking in the vicinity of the site, and equally the Council has not indicated how the proposed change of use would increase congestion in the area. I do not therefore consider that it would be reasonable or necessary, in the interests of transport or highway impacts, to impose a ‘car free’ condition in this 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 requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and conditions relating to waste and recycling storage, and bicycle parking].
  • 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 relating to parking permits].

June 2017 - Code P3CM-073 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2017 - Code P3CM-072 (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).