“GPDO Part 3 Class O – Prior Approval Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 243) …

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

November 2017 - Code P3CO-243 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “impacts of noise” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was used as B1(a) on 29/05/2013 or (if not in use on that date) when it was last in use. [Note: In other words, the proposed development would comply with O.1(b)].
    [Quote: “A Certificate of Lawfulness, Ref HYG/2009/0367 was granted for the use of the appeal building as Class B1 in April 2009, and it is not disputed that Ersan & Co Solicitors’ Ltd operated from the premises between 2009 and 2014. I have not been provided with any evidence from the Council that would suggest that this company was operating from the building unlawfully, and there does not appear to have been any subsequent planning permissions for a change of use since the 2009 certificate was granted. Moreover, when the Council considered a previous application for prior approval on this site, Ref HGY/2013/2545 in 2013, they considered that the building was in B1 (a) office use. I recognise that this company has now moved to a high street location, however the appellant’s appeal documents include a letter which confirms that during Ersan & Co Solicitors’ occupation of the appeal building, they did not operate an open door policy, and that their offices were used to practice personal injury, conveyancing, immigration and family law and by an appointment system only. Whilst during this time the building may well have advertised the company details, it is not unusual for a business to display its company logo. This fact alone would not lead me to conclude that the business relied principally on providing services to visiting members of the public. It is clear that the lawful use of the appeal building is for Class B1, and I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that would lead me to conclude that Ersan & Co Solicitors’ were operating from the premises for any use other than as an office use under Class B1 (a) on 29 May 2013.”].
  • 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 s106 agreement relating to vehicle parking].
    [Quote: “However, from the Council Officer’s Report and Statement of Case, it is evident that this area of Wood Green experiences extreme parking pressure due to many properties being converted to flats. The site falls within the Wood Green Outer Controlled Parking Zone and therefore future residents would be free to apply for parking permits which would exacerbate existing parking stress in the area and have a harmful impact on highway safety. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) promotes the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling and aims to focus development in locations which are sustainable. The appeal property has excellent public transport accessibility, with frequent bus services and underground stations within walking distance nearby. As such, alternatives to the private car would be available to future occupiers. The appellant has submitted a signed and executed Unilateral Undertaking (UU) to secure the development as car free. The Council has confirmed that the UU would overcome their concerns relating to transport and highway impacts. I am satisfied that the proposal would not therefore have an adverse impact on highway safety matters and the UU would accord with Regulations 122 & 123 of the Community and Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010 and with paragraph 204 of the Framework.”].
  • 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: “The Council has suggested a condition which I have considered against advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guide. Accordingly, I have imposed a condition to secure cycle parking to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes.”].
  • 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: s106 agreement relating to parking permits, and condition relating to bicycle parking].

November 2017 - Code P3CO-242 (appeal allowed):

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

November 2017 - Code P3CO-241 (appeal 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 "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website 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 33 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).