“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 78) …

The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 1 additional appeal decision relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

September 2017 - Code P3CM-078 (2 x 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: “Consequently, with respect to Appeal A I do not consider that the proposal would be harmful to the sustainability, retail function and viability of the shopping parade.”].
  • 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: The proposed conversion would result in a new smaller retail (etc) unit].
    [Note: Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “Moving on to Appeal B at No 832. The rear kitchen/storage area to the rear of the ground floor is clearly associated with the current retail function. The retail area includes space for the display and storage of goods and some food preparation and there is also a storage area to the rear of the main retail area that would be retained. The current proposals for both Nos 832 and 830 would result in the loss of the kitchen/storage areas which serve the unit, but I do not necessarily consider that the loss of these particular functions would be harmful to the ongoing retail activity at the front part of the ground floor. Although on-site production would be significantly affected by the proposed change of use the sale of goods from the premises could continue without hindrance from the proposed residential use to the rear.”].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration.
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “As such it would not be contrary to the provisions of Policy SH6 of the UDP and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).”].

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).