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:

January 2018 - Code P3CO-247 (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” = no assessment.
  - “flooding risks” = acceptable (short assessment).
  - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the lawful use of the site (i.e. the building and any land within its curtilage) is B1(a). [Note: In other words, the proposed development would comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class O].
  [Note: Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The office building was built in 1971 and occupies four floors, plus rooftop rooms containing plant, lift equipment and access to a water tower and telecommunications apparatus. The majority of the building comprises a mix of open-plan office space, with a variety of smaller or individual offices, used to accommodate the senior management of the Council. The offices were used to carry out many of the usual functions of a local authority including parking, housing benefits, legal, property, financial services, democratic services, economic and tourism development, human resources, planning, building control and environmental health departments. The main entrance to the building is on the ground floor, which gives access to a reception area, the former cash office, some interview rooms, toilets and a waiting area. On the first floor are two Committee rooms, next to the Mayor’s Parlour. These rooms have interconnecting folding doors which enabled them to be used flexibly. The Committee rooms have no special access arrangements or separate accommodation for the public or press. The appellants’ undisputed figures are that 88.44% of the gross internal area (GIA) of the building was always closed to the public, and other than when the public were admitted to the committee rooms, 94.25% of the GIA was inaccessible. [...] Drawing all the strands together, I consider that the use of [the application site] presents few of the special features which led the Inspector to conclude that County Hall fell to be a sui generis use. When looked at in its entirety, the administrative functions carried out within the vast majority of the floorspace can be characterised as office use, and the use of the small amount of floorspace by the public and the carrying out the democratic functions are insufficient to shift the balance from use as an office to a sui generis use.”].
• 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 Council has not suggested the imposition of any conditions. However, the Highway Authority and the Environment Agency have suggested conditions, which I have imposed in the interests of highway safety and minimising flood risk respectively.”].
• 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 not suggested the imposition of any conditions. However, the Highway Authority and the Environment Agency have suggested conditions, which I have imposed in the interests of highway safety and minimising flood risk respectively.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “flooding risks on the site”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to the safety of occupiers].
  [Quote: “The Council has not suggested the imposition of any conditions. However, the Highway Authority and the Environment Agency have suggested conditions, which I have imposed in the interests of highway safety and minimising flood risk respectively.”].
• 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 flood mitigation measures].

January 2018 - Code P3CO-246 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2018 - Code P3CO-245 (2 x 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 "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).