“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 224) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

June 2017 - Code P3CO-224 (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 the lawful use of the site (i.e. the building and any land within its curtilage) is not B1(a). [Note: In other words, the proposed development would not comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class O].
    [Quote: “The existing plans submitted with the appeal application show the ground floor of the building subdivided into three store rooms with a smaller storage area, five offices, staff room and toilets at first floor. This layout was in existence at the time of my site inspection, but the first floor was being used as a single dwelling unit. I have seen nothing within the evidence from either party to suggest that residential use is authorised. Nevertheless, a building which is in use as a dwelling, even as part of a mixed planning unit, would not enjoy permitted development rights under Class O.”].
  • 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: “According to the appellant, the building was constructed to provide an administrative base for Dince Hill (Holdings) Ltd. It is contended that the primary use on 29th May 2013 was for offices with ancillary file and archive storage and drawing office. I am told that a carpenter’s workshop on part of the ground floor was vacated prior to that date. There is no substantive evidence to indicate that the appellant had first-hand knowledge of the use of the building on the prescribed date. I am therefore reliant upon a statutory declaration from the Company Secretary of the firm which owned and occupied the site at the time. However, this document is not signed or dated. I am therefore unable to place any significant weight upon it. The onus lies with the appellant to provide the relevant information to demonstrate compliance with the limitation set out in Paragraph O.1(b). In my opinion, the burden of proof has not been adequately discharged. Based on the evidence presented, I do not have the necessary confidence that the primary use of the building on 29th May 2013 was for B1(a)(offices).”].

June 2017 - Code P3CO-223 (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 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: “It is argued that the workshop and storage rooms were ancillary to the primary use of the building as offices. However, these areas occupy a significant proportion of the overall floorspace. Without understanding more about the nature of the former business operation it is difficult to determine whether certain activities were incidental to others, or whether the building was in mixed use as the Authority has suggested. There is no substantive evidence to indicate that the appellant had first-hand knowledge of the use of the building at the relevant point in time. I am therefore reliant upon a statutory declaration from the Company Secretary of the firm which owned and occupied the site on the prescribed date. This states that, until August 2012 when administrative operations were transferred to adjoining premises, the building was fully occupied as offices on the ground and first floor levels, with the upper floor utilised as file/archive storage in association with the office use. Whilst I note this information, the statutory declaration is not signed or dated. Consequently, I can attach it very limited weight. In light of the above, I am not in a position to determine with any confidence that the primary use of the building fell within Class B1(a)(offices) of the Use Classes Order on 29th May 2013 or when last in use.”].

June 2017 - Code P3CO-222 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2017 - Code P3CO-221 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2017 - Code P3CO-220 (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 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).