“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 238) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

September 2017 - Code P3CO-238 (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 the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed vehicle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “Even though occupiers of the proposed flats or from drivers of displaced vehicles would, no doubt, prefer to park close to their property, alternative provision is only a short walk away using lit pedestrian footways and crossing points. Consequently I do not share the Council’s concerns about convenience, even if drivers may need to move their vehicle at particular times of the day. I must also consider the scheme on the current circumstances and not any potential extension of the waiting restrictions on Widmore Road. Even so, the proposal would result in extra vehicle movements in Lewes Road as drivers search for parking spaces. While the Council suggest that this would, cumulatively, be harmful to highway safety, the number of extra movements would be modest and they are all unlikely to take place at the same time. Furthermore, the movements would be on Lewes Road itself and not near to the junction with Widmore Road as drivers would need to travel along Lewes Road to see whether there are any free spaces. Although Lewes Road does not have a turning head, drivers would be able to use the area in front of the gates to the appeal site to turn around, even if they are not open. As such, the proposal would not, in this regard, lead to a severe impact on highway safety.”].
  • 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: “In addition to the condition set out in Paragraph O.2 (2) of the GPDO, I have imposed a condition to secure bicycle parking facilities to promote and offer a range of travel choice as an alternative to the car.”].
  • 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 condition relating to 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: Conditions relating to construction vehicles, and waste and recycling storage].
  • 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: “Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, notwithstanding the proposed lack of off-street car parking and the maximum parking standards in UDP Policy T3, the local area could conveniently accommodate the parking demand for the proposed development. Thus, I conclude that the proposal would accord with UDP Policies T3 and T18, Bromley’s PS, Policy 6.13 of the London Plan and paragraphs 17, 32 and 40 of the Framework.”].

September 2017 - Code P3CO-237 (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 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: “The Appellant has provided vehicle tracking diagrams which demonstrate that two vehicles could park within the site and (just) be able to enter and exit the site independently. In the alternative, the Appellant has suggested that both parking spaces could be used by the two bedroom flat, with the one bedroom flat having no on site provision. Clearly, this latter situation would not have a greater on street parking impact than the previous appeal development owing to the less intense nature of the current proposal.”].
  • 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: “Conditions have been suggested in relation to cycle parking provision and refuse bin storage. Given that these details are not shown on the submitted drawings, and that there is limited external space not utilised for the parking of cars, it is necessary for these details to be submitted to ensure that appropriate provision is made in the interests of the living conditions of the future occupants of the flats, the amenity of the area, and to promote sustainable transport alternatives to the car.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, 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: “Conditions have been suggested in relation to cycle parking provision and refuse bin storage. Given that these details are not shown on the submitted drawings, and that there is limited external space not utilised for the parking of cars, it is necessary for these details to be submitted to ensure that appropriate provision is made in the interests of the living conditions of the future occupants of the flats, the amenity of the area, and to promote sustainable transport alternatives to the car.”].
  • 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 relating to vehicle parking spaces, bicycle parking, and waste and recycling storage].
  • 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: “For the above reasons the development would not have an adverse effect on on-street parking and would accord with Policy DM TP8 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (2011) which amongst other matters seeks to ensure that new development is provided with an appropriate level of car parking.”].

September 2017 - Code P3CO-236 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2017 - Code P3CO-235 (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).