“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 234) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 2 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

August 2017 - Code P3CO-234 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (detailed 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 development does comply with the post-15/04/2015 version of O.1(f). [Note: In other words, both 1) the building is not a listed building and 2) the building is not within the curtilage of a listed building].
  • 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.
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to vehicle parking].
    [Quote: “I note Council comments that the proposed development could lead to a demand for 1 car parking space per dwelling. However, taken together the limited size of the proposed dwellings, each containing only one bedroom, the good PTAL rating of the site, and the number of cycle parking spaces that would be provided, lead me to the view that the level of parking demand arising from the proposed development could be more limited than the Council’s estimate. Moreover, I am mindful of the appellant’s Parking Stress Survey Report, based on the established ‘Lambeth Methodology’ which found an average of 18 unrestricted car parking spaces in the environs of the site, an average of 11 of which were on Pembroke Road itself. Furthermore, considerable parking space was available on single yellow lines and pay and display car-parks in the area, amongst other more restricted parking areas, and whilst these spaces may not lend themselves to daytime parking they do, however, point to a substantial supply of parking space available overnight.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the impact of delivery and servicing vehicles and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “I note comments that the on-site parking spaces are fully occupied on most days by the current users of the appeal building, and that the access to the appeal property’s rear yard is also used by servicing vehicles for the neighbouring commercial properties. However, the proposed change of use would merely mean that the rear yard spaces would be occupied by residential rather than commercial occupiers of the appeal building, and this would be unlikely to lead to a material difference in the occupancy of those spaces. As a consequence, I consider that the proposed parking arrangements would not inhibit access for servicing vehicles, or the emergency services, or for the occupants of the upper residential floors of the adjacent block.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed whether emergency vehicles would be able to access the site and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “I note comments that the on-site parking spaces are fully occupied on most days by the current users of the appeal building, and that the access to the appeal property’s rear yard is also used by servicing vehicles for the neighbouring commercial properties. However, the proposed change of use would merely mean that the rear yard spaces would be occupied by residential rather than commercial occupiers of the appeal building, and this would be unlikely to lead to a material difference in the occupancy of those spaces. As a consequence, I consider that the proposed parking arrangements would not inhibit access for servicing vehicles, or the emergency services, or for the occupants of the upper residential floors of the adjacent block.”].
  • 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: “However, as the transport and highways impacts of the proposed development are related to the subject matter of the prior approval, I have attached the conditions requiring the provision and maintenance of the proposed car parking spaces, and for submission of the details of cycling parking arrangements to the Council for its approval, and that the approved details are implemented prior to first residential occupation of the proposed development. However, I consider it unnecessary to require compliance with these conditions prior to development starting at the site.”].
  • 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, and conditions relating to vehicle parking spaces, bicycle parking, and waste and recycling storage].
  • 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: Conditions relating to sewage and surface water drainage, boundary treatments, landscaping, visibility splays, and sound insulation measures].

August 2017 - Code P3CO-233 (appeal dismissed):

  • [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).