“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 8 additional appeal decisions (total = 232) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 8 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

July 2017 - Code P3CO-232 (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 site is within a safety hazard area.
    [Note: The site is within the HSE Consultation Zone for the Kennington Gas Holder Station].

July 2017 - Code P3CO-231 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “impacts of noise” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “flooding risks on the site”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “While the appellant’s Flood Risk Assessment shows that the building stands in Flood Zone 1, the car-park and road in front of the building which form its principal access are in Flood Zones 2 and 3. The change of use would increase the vulnerability of the building’s occupants in the event of flooding nearby. However, there is a continuous footpath around the building which leads via an adjacent footpath onto Western Road, which is in Flood Zone 1. This would provide future occupants with a safe, dry escape.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “contamination risks on the site”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating the safety of occupiers].
    [Quote: “The appellant has submitted a Contamination Risk Assessment, based on bore holes and trial pits. It concludes that two levels of protection against the ingress of bio-gas are necessary. It suggests a range of protection systems including sub-floor ventilation, a ground–bearing raft or suspended slab and the installation of a gas resistant membrane. However, the assessment is unclear as to which, if any, of these measures might have been previously installed in this existing building, their effectiveness, or which of these measures, if any, should reasonably be installed before its change of use. Paragraph W(13) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO states that prior approval may be granted subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. I note that the appellant considers that a precautionary approach is necessary. Therefore, a condition to secure the details of a remediation scheme, as required by the Contamination Risk Assessment would ensure that the site would be suitable for its intended use and that there would not be an unacceptable risk from pollution. There would therefore be no conflict with paragraph 120 of the Framework.”].
  • 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 contamination].

July 2017 - Code P3CO-230 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2017 - Code P3CO-229 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2017 - Code P3CO-228 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2017 - Code P3CO-227 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2017 - Code P3CO-226 (2 x appeal allowed):

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

July 2017 - Code P3CO-225 (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).