The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2018 - Code P3CM-085 (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” = no assessment.
  - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the LPA did not notify the applicant of the decision (i.e. as to whether prior approval was given or refused) within the 56 day deadline. (*)
  [Quote: “The parties agree that the 56 day period expired on 4 September 2017. The Council’s Planning Officers Report is dated 4 September, but no evidence is before me to demonstrate that the appellant received the notification on this date. In this light, the appellant states that a notification had not been received within the submitted appeal form and Statement of Case which are dated 7 September 2017. Consequently, based on the evidence before me, it appears likely that the appellant did not receive the relevant notification within the 56 day period. Consequently the proposal has already received a deemed grant of approval. In these circumstances, development within the scope of Class M can go ahead as the GPDO grants deemed approval for such development where the Council fails to give notice of its decision within the prescribed period. However, I must be satisfied that the proposal would fall within the scope of permitted development as set out at in Class M and comply with the conditions referred at paragraph M.2 of the GPDO. The Council’s sole concern regards M.2 (a) which relates to the transport and highways impacts of the development.”].
• 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: “Whilst the site is located in an area with a PTAL score of 2 (indicating a poor level of access to public transport), bus stops are close to No 170 offering services to the wider area. In conjunction with the public car park at Fullers Road, these facilities combined with the parking to the rear of the site would ensure that the overall needs of the proposal and retail unit are met and thus prevent the need for indiscriminate on-street parking. Policy T5 of the Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document sets maximum parking standards for development. Based on my reasoning above, the proposal would meet the parking standards cited by the Council for a 1-2 bed dwelling and the needs of the site overall in the context of M.2 (a) of the GPDO. Moreover no substantive evidence is before me to demonstrate that the proposal would be detrimental to the safety of road users and pedestrians. Therefore the transport and highways impacts of the development would be acceptable.”].
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Quote: “Policy T5 of the Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document sets maximum parking standards for development. Based on my reasoning above, the proposal would meet the parking standards cited by the Council for a 1-2 bed dwelling and the needs of the site overall in the context of M.2 (a) of the GPDO.”].

February 2018 - Code P3CM-084 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
  - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
  - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  - “impact of the change of use” = no assessment.
  - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (short 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.
  [Quote: “The appeal site is within a Controlled Parking Zone and the Council considers that, in the absence of a Planning Obligation to prevent future occupiers from applying for parking permits, the proposal would lead to parking stress. Neither party has produced a parking survey or any other substantive evidence on the availability and level of usage of parking in the area. Nor has the Council produced any evidence to show that parking stress has led to problems with highway safety or convenience. Mixed parking permit and pay parking is available nearby in Romola Road. At the time of my site visit it was well used, although spaces were available. I recognise that this is only a snapshot of the position. However, the appellant argues that the existing use of the property would allow an unrestricted number of business parking permits and that the amount of parking demand associated with the existing use would exceed that generated by the proposed residential use. As such, there would be a reduction in parking demand.”].
• 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 appellant has also submitted a revised plan (Drawing ref AM142 NR Rev B) which shows secure cycle storage in the front courtyard of the property. The Council had an opportunity to comment on this plan through the submission of an appeal statement. The location proposed for the cycle storage is within the application red line boundary. Details and implementation of the cycle parking could, therefore, be secured by condition. This would overcome the Council’s second reason for refusal. It would also help to limit the parking demand generated by the proposal. [...] I have also found that a condition to secure details and implementation of cycle parking is necessary in the interests of transport impact.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering “the design or external appearance of the building”, assessed waste and recycling storage and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to waste and recycling storage].
  [Quote: “The officer’s report for the application refers to the use a condition requiring further details of refuse/recycling storage. This is necessary in the interests of design.”].
• 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 requiring the development to be completed within 3 years, requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and requiring the building to be used as a dwellinghouse, and conditions relating to bicycle parking, and waste and recycling storage].
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
  [Quote: “Consequently, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect with regard to transport and highways matters. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to Policy D4 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 (LP) which seeks Planning Obligations to mitigate the impact of development through, amongst other things, parking restrictions; Policy T7 which seeks car free development, particularly in areas of high public transport accessibility and London Plan 2016 Policy 6.13 which sets out parking standards.”].

February 2018 - Code P3CM-083 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2018 - Code P3CM-082 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2018 - Code P3CM-081 (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 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).