“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 80) …

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:

January 2018 - Code P3CM-080 (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” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “impact of the change of use” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  • 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 adequate provision of services (albeit only where there is a reasonable prospect of the building being used to provide such services) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “However, the appellant’s survey of uses in the surrounding parade of shops confirmed that 5 out of 23 units (22%) were vacant at the time of their survey, which was supported by what I was able to see during my site visit. Evidence has been supplied from a local agent that states that there is little demand for retail uses in this location and such a use is unlikely to be attracted to this unit. This evidence suggests that there is not a reasonable prospect of the building being used to provide retail services. The Council state that a 12 month marketing exercise could have been undertaken. The appellant suggests that this requirement is taken from Policy DP3 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies that requires it in order to demonstrate no demand for the premises in retail use. That is a much more onerous test than that in the GPDO. As such, I do not consider that the extent of evidence required by the Council is necessary. My attention has been drawn to the Written Ministerial Statement of 6 March 2014 that makes clear the onus is on the local planning authority to establish that the proposal would have a detrimental impact if they want to refuse the conversion. No evidence to contradict that of the appellant has been provided. For these reasons, I conclude that the loss of the retail unit at [the application site] would not have an adverse impact on the adequate provision of retail services as there is not a reasonable prospect of the shop being used to provide retail services. Therefore, it is not undesirable for the building to change to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses).”].
  • 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: “Parking is proposed to be provided in a garage to the rear of the building. This would provide sufficient off road parking for residents of this modest flat such that there would not be a shortfall in parking provided that would lead to inconsiderate parking that would harm highway safety.”].

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).