The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 6 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

April 2018 - Code P3CO-260 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = no assessment.
  - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
  - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
• The phrase “used for a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices)” within O.1(b) refers to the lawful use of the building (i.e. rather than the actual use of the building). (*)
  [Note: In my opinion, it’s not clear whether the Inspector concludes that 1) O.1(b) requires both the lawful use and the actual use of the building to be B1(a) on 29/05/2013, or 2) O.1(b) requires only the lawful use of the building to be B1(a) on 29/05/2013].
  [Quote: “I note that a Lawful Development Certificate for the B1 (a) use of the building was granted on 15 September 2017 (Ref: W/17/1285) (‘Certificate’). That was on the basis that the building had been used as B1(a) offices for an uninterrupted period of 10 years prior to that date. The main parties do not therefore dispute that the building was in Class B1(a) office use on 29th May 2013. However, in its decision notice the Council contends that as the building was not in ‘lawful’ use as B1(a) offices on that date, planning permission is required. The appellant points out that paragraph O.1.(b) does not refer to a building’s ‘lawful’ use. However, Article 3(5) of the GPDO requires that the B1(a) office use must also have been lawful. [...] I understand that the building was used from March 2007 entirely for office use, as corroborated by the Certificate. From the available evidence, and on the balance of probabilities, Class B1(a) offices was not therefore its lawful use on 29th May 2013.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was not 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 not comply with O.1(b)].
  [Quote: “I note that a Lawful Development Certificate for the B1 (a) use of the building was granted on 15 September 2017 (Ref: W/17/1285) (‘Certificate’). That was on the basis that the building had been used as B1(a) offices for an uninterrupted period of 10 years prior to that date. The main parties do not therefore dispute that the building was in Class B1(a) office use on 29th May 2013. However, in its decision notice the Council contends that as the building was not in ‘lawful’ use as B1(a) offices on that date, planning permission is required. The appellant points out that paragraph O.1.(b) does not refer to a building’s ‘lawful’ use. However, Article 3(5) of the GPDO requires that the B1(a) office use must also have been lawful. [...] I understand that the building was used from March 2007 entirely for office use, as corroborated by the Certificate. From the available evidence, and on the balance of probabilities, Class B1(a) offices was not therefore its lawful use on 29th May 2013.”].

April 2018 - Code P3CO-259 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = no assessment.
  - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
  - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was not 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 not comply with O.1(b)].
  [Quote: “The appellant’s evidence states that the offices were the head offices of the company and were not solely used as ancillary office accommodation to the on-site business. The evidence further states that the company had several other outlets and the offices performed the office function for the group of businesses. The use of the past tense in these statements suggests a previous use. However, there is limited information before me to demonstrate when this took place. A valuation report dated 1999 describes the building as containing, ‘a tyre, exhaust and clutch service base centre together with MOT facility, waiting room, reception room, newly constructed WC’s, MOT office, archives offices, fitters office, lobby, private office, general office together with a large first floor general office’. This description is inconclusive on the use of the offices. Another report dated 2012 refers to ground and first floor offices to the rear of the building. This is also inconclusive. Although the availability of declarations is referred to, none are before me. In light of this, and on the balance of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to show that the part of the building to which this proposal relates can be regarded as a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices) of the Use Classes Order for the purposes of Class O.”].

April 2018 - Code P3CO-258 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2018 - Code P3CO-257 (6 x appeal allowed):

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

April 2018 - Code P3CO-256 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2018 - Code P3CO-255 (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 Part 3 Class O 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 33 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).