“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 240) …

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:

October 2017 - Code P3CO-240 (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” = acceptable (short 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 existing car parking provision of 358 spaces is arranged at undercroft and mezzanine levels and around the perimeter of the site boundary. The proposal seeks to reduce provision by 221 spaces by closing off the existing mezzanine level car parking and cordoning off the eastern parts of the ground level parking to leave 137 parking spaces to serve 171 dwellings. This equates to a ratio of about 0.8 spaces per flat. I have noted that Transport for London (TFL) consider that the ratio could stand to be decreased further. In consideration of this, Policy 6.13 of the London Plan seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use. The maximum standards set out in Table 6.2 of the London Plan are less than one space per unit for one to two bedroom accommodation, such as that proposed. London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (LP) Policy EC2 states that development should provide an appropriate maximum number of car parking spaces consistent with these standards. Therefore, in the context of the appeal site, a ratio of 0.8 would not be excessive and would not amount to a high provision of car parking spaces.”].
  • 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: “Moreover, in response to concerns expressed by the Council, swept path analysis of has been provided in support of the appeal which demonstrates that a delivery van and refuse vehicle can safely enter, turn, manoeuvre and exit the site in forward gear.”].
  • 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: “Moreover, the scheme would provide 194 cycle parking spaces, marginally in excess of the minimum standards of Policy 6.9 of the London Plan, which LP Policy EC2 requires development to be consistent with. Also in accordance with expectations of both policies, the cycle parking spaces would be provided within three separate secure stores in sheltered locations underneath the building at ground floor level, in easily accessible and convenient locations close to the site entrance. I’m also satisfied that the precise type of cycle stands or racks, which address the concerns of TfL, can be secured by condition.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “On the basis of the evidence I do have, the figures do not suggest that the road in and around the appeal site is particularly or unusually dangerous for cyclists or pedestrians. The appellant has suggested free cyclist training sessions as part of the Travel Plan requirements and in my view this would amount to proportionate mitigation for the quantum and type of recorded accidents.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the sustainability of the proposed development and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “In summary, I do not find that the proposal would result in a high provision of car parking spaces or would be located within an unduly poor pedestrian and cycling environment that would materially deter such modes of travel. Although not a highly sustainable location, I am satisfied, having regard to the above, that there would be a range of sustainable transport options available to future occupants such that they would not be dependent on car based travel. I do not therefore find conflict with LP Policy EC2 or Policy 6.13 of the London Plan. These seek, amongst other things, to secure a more sustainable local travel network that maximises opportunities for walking, cycling and using public transport, reduce congestion and improve health and wellbeing.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, indicated that it was not necessary to assess waste and recycling storage. (*)
    [Quote: “I do not consider arrangements for the storage of waste and recycled materials or the requirement for a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval.”].
  • 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, travel plan, construction logistics plan, and contamination].
  • 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 requiring the development to begin within a certain time period, and requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and conditions relating to waste and recycling storage, and construction environmental management plan].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
    [Quote: “Although not a highly sustainable location, I am satisfied, having regard to the above, that there would be a range of sustainable transport options available to future occupants such that they would not be dependent on car based travel. I do not therefore find conflict with LP Policy EC2 or Policy 6.13 of the London Plan.”].

October 2017 - Code P3CO-239 (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).