“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 86) …

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:

March 2018 - Code P3CM-086 (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” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (minimal 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 appellant has identified a number of opportunities for on- and off-street parking in the vicinity of the site. The Council advises that the High Street car park may no longer be available. However, based on the appellant’s evidence, this would still leave more than 1500 spaces in car parks as well as on-street parking. Although the Council also states that some of the car parks are not in its control, there is nothing to suggest that they would not be available for use by future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. It also points out that the proposal is not supported by a parking stress survey. However, there is no substantive evidence to show that, collectively, the number and range of parking opportunities in the area could not accommodate the parking demand generated by two studio flats.”].
  • 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 proposal offers the opportunity to provide one cycle parking space per unit. A condition could be used to ensure that this provision is secure, weatherproof and accessible. Together with the site’s sustainable location, this provision could help to reduce the parking demand generated by the proposal.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering issue M.2(1)(d), concluded that the building is not located in a key shopping area.
    [Quote: “The [Rushmoor Local Plan Review] pre-dates the Framework and does not define primary and secondary frontages. Rather, the appeal site is within the Town Centre, but outside of the Shopping Core, as defined by the Plan. The [Draft Submission Rushmoor Local Plan] has been informed by the findings of the Rushmoor and Hart Retail, Leisure and Town Centres Study (2015) (the Study) and follows the Framework’s approach. The appeal site is within a secondary frontage for the purposes of this Plan. The Study defines the primary frontage based on the main shopping circuit through the Wellington Centre, Union Street (east side) and the north part of Wellington Street. This circuit comes closest to the appeal site at the junction of Union Street and Wellington Street. However, the appeal site is detached from it by the corner of Wellington Street and High Street and the unit at 57 High Street. I saw on the site visit that this results in a marked change in the character of the area. Compared with Union Street and Wellington Street, there appears to be significantly less foot-fall in the High Street, there is less evidence of recent investment and a much greater proportion of vacant units. Of the units which are occupied, a smaller proportion is in Class A1 use. Consequently, I consider that the appeal site does not fall within a ‘key shopping area’ for the purposes of Class M of the GPDO.”].
  • 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: “Consequently, I find that the proposed parking arrangements would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to Policy CP16 of the Rushmoor Core Strategy (CS) insofar as it seeks to ensure that proposals are located to give maximum flexibility in terms of transport choice and that they provide appropriate parking in accordance with the Council’s standards.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector indicated that it was not necessary to assess the effect of the proposed development on a European site or a European offshore marine site (e.g. with reference to “The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017”). (*)
    [Quote: “Regulation 75 provides that it is a condition of any permission granted by a general development order that development which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site must not be begun until the developer has received written notification of the Local Planning Authority’s approval under Regulation 77. If, as in this case, the condition has not been complied with, Regulations 75-78 allow for it to be discharged through a separate process. This is the approach which the appellant seeks to follow. The application must be made before any development granted under an application for prior approval begins. As such, a prior approval application can be approved, but it would be subject to the condition in Regulation 75 that a separate application is made under Regulation 77 before works commence. The appellant should note, therefore, that no change of use shall take place until written notification has been given of the Local Planning Authority’s approval of mitigation measures as required by Article 3(1) of the GPDO and Regulations 75 to 78 of the Regulations.”].
  • 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, and requiring the building to be used as a dwellinghouse, and conditions relating to waste and recycling storage, and bicycle parking].
  • 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 begin within a certain time period, and requiring compliance with the approved drawings].

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).