“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 95) …

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

June 2018 - Code P3CM-095 (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” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) concluded that the resulting site would constitute “a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses)”.
    [Note: Each of the residential units would have a floor area of approx 23m2].
    [Note: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “Whether a building is a dwellinghouse requires a factual approach [Scurlock v SoS for Wales and Another [1977] 33 P.& C.R. 2002] and consideration of whether the building has the ability to afford those that use it the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence [Gravesham BC v SoS for the Environment (1982) 47P & C.R. 142]. The floorplans detail a living area with a kitchen, a shower and WC, storage area and a bedroom. I am therefore satisfied the units provide the necessary facilities for day to day living such as those required for cooking, eating, washing and sleeping and would constitute a dwellinghouse as required by the GPDO. Moreover, although the Council state that they do not rely on the national space standards, but use them as an indication of how small the floor areas are, it is pertinent to note that Class M of the GDPO does not stipulate minimum internal floor areas for accommodation permitted by the Order. Nor do the national space standards provide a definition of a dwelling. While I accept that the units are small, they nonetheless comply with the restrictions as set out in Class M.1 and the conditions as set out in Class M.2. I therefore conclude that the proposal is development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 3 Class M of the GPDO.”].
  • 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 s106 agreement relating to vehicle parking].
    [Quote: “The obligation submitted by the appellant requires a financial contribution of £2000 towards the variation of the relevant Controlled Parking Zone Order to exclude future occupiers of the units from their entitlement to apply for a residents parking permit within Zones surrounding the site. The obligation would be paid before the development commences and provides appropriate notification period to the Council. Although the undertaking does not require the variation to be in place before the units are occupied, it follows the specification of the Council who are best placed to know whether it would give them sufficient time to address the issue. As such, I consider the obligation to be necessary, relevant and fairly related to the development proposed as required by CIL Regulation 122.”].
  • 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: Condition relating to materials (to match existing)].
  • 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: Condition requiring compliance with the approved drawings].

June 2018 - Code P3CM-094 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = no 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 it was concluded that the lawful use of the building is retail (etc). [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 M].
    [Quote: “The area to be looked at is the whole of the area which is used for a particular purpose, including any part of that area the use of which is incidental to or ancillary to the achievement of that purpose. From observations made during the site visit, and from the submitted evidence before me, the overall use of the unit is retail. It is accepted that the workshop is physically separate to the two main units. Nevertheless, the workshop has a clear functional relationship and forms part of the overall dominant retail use. As a matter of fact and degree it is therefore found that the two units and the workshop are part of one retail unit and no separate planning unit has been created. Accordingly, the proposal complies with Class M(a) of the GPDO.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the submitted information indicates that operational development (for which planning permission has not been granted) would be carried out, and the Inspector concluded that prior approval should not be refused on this basis. (*)
    [Quote: “The GPDO currently allows Class M applications to be for M(a) only, or for both M(a) and M(b) together. Notwithstanding what is depicted on the submitted plans, it is evident from the appellant’s application form and submitted appeal statement that only a change of use is sought. Moreover, the appellant has advised of his intention to submit a full planning application for any required external alterations and demolition. It is noted that Paragraph W(2) of Class W states that , “… a written description of the proposed development, which, in relation to development proposed under Class C, M, N or Q of this Part, must [in the same application] include any building or other operations…”. However, as W(2) only applies to ‘the proposed development’, then building operation matters are outside the remit of this appeal. The concerns raised by the Council in respect of building operations are noted. However, such aspects would need to be subject to either a full planning application or a combined prior approval application. As such, the proposal is found to comply with the relevant limitations of Class M of the GPDO.”].

June 2018 - Code P3CM-093 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2018 - Code P3CM-092 (appeal dismissed):

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

June 2018 - Code P3CM-091 (appeal allowed):

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

June 2018 - Code P3CM-090 (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).