“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 79) …

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:

November 2017 - Code P3CM-079 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impact of the change of use” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (short 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.
    [Quote: “The appeal site is located within the Hornsey Road North Local Shopping Area. The Council considers this to be a key shopping area. The appellant states that the retail unit has been vacant since 2011. The appellant argues that the shopping area does not amount to a ‘key shopping area’ as referred to by the GPDO. Whilst located lower down the retail hierarchy in the development plan, it appears to still provide a valuable overall retail and service offering for the surrounding community. For the purposes of this appeal and from the evidence before me I have considered it as being a key shopping area.”].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not the “starting point”. [Note: In some of these appeal decisions it’s not clear whether the Inspector concludes that 1) the development plan is a material consideration but not the “starting point” or 2) the development plan is not a material consideration]. (*)
    [Quote: “The Council refers to policy DM4.6 of its Development Management Policies 2013 which in seeking to protect ground floor retail units includes a requirement for the submission of evidence of marketing. No such information has been provided in this case. As this is a prior approval appeal, it should not be determined on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, or as though the development plan must be applied. However, development plan policies may be relevant insofar as they relate to the matters under consideration.”].
  • 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].
    [Quote: “In this case the proposal would retain the large majority of the existing ground floor retail use. Whilst the associated retail use of the basement (including its possible use for associated storage) would be lost, there seems to me no reason why the retained ground floor retail use could not be viable in the future. Space for a storage area and staff office is indicated on the proposed plans towards the rear of the refurbished ground floor. No persuasive evidence has been provided that suggests the retained A1 floor space would not be viable. The primacy of retail shops within the shopping area would not be harmed.”].
  • 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: “The Council has also suggested a condition restricting eligibility for residents of the development to obtain an on street parking permit. Transport and highway impacts are matters for consideration under prior approval. The Council Officer’s report refers to preventing an obstruction to the highway and to minimise the number of cars on the road thereby ensuring less traffic congestion. However, the site has good access to public transport, shops and facilities and therefore trip generation would be likely to be very low. There are existing on street parking controls to the front of the premises. There is no persuasive evidence that, should a future occupier wish to own a car, it would cause a harmful obstruction to traffic. There is no evidence provided to suggest that parking is a particular problem in the vicinity of the site. I note the policies referred to by the Council. However, in this case it would not be either necessary or reasonable, in the interests of transport or highway impacts, to impose a restriction on eligibility for parking permits in this case. It has not been necessary therefore to consider further the Council’s suggested condition any further against the relevant tests and the Planning Practice Guidance.”].
  • 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 be carried out within a certain time period, requiring the building to be used as a dwellinghouse, and requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and condition relating to parking permits].


  • 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).