“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 272) …

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

August 2018 - Code P3CO-272 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (detailed 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 a condition (on a previous planning permission), which restricts the use of the property but doesn’t refer to the GPDO, does not remove permitted development rights under Part 3 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: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “I have had regard to the comments of local residents and that the Council has indicated that they are considering imposing restrictions in this area. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the relatively limited demand for parking created by the development would lead to unacceptable risks. Neither would such controls create a moratorium on development. The offices already generates potential demand for parking. Although there would be a clear difference between the timing of demand from office and residential uses, I am not convinced that the increase in overnight parking potential would be such that it would cause or exacerbate highway safety problems. Moreover, allowing this appeal would not prevent the Council from continuing to consider such measures in the future nor prejudice their effectiveness should they be put in place. In conclusion, I have seen nothing that would lead me to conclude the development would result in any unacceptable risk to highway safety or severe cumulative effects on the efficient operation of the transport network.”].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not the “starting point”. [Note: In some of these appeal decisions it’s not clear whether the Inspector concludes that 1) the development plan is a material consideration but not the “starting point” or 2) the development plan is not a material consideration].
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “The site is not within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Policy DM17 of the Barnet Development Management Development Plan Document (DMDPD) allows for limited or no parking outside CPZs where it can be demonstrated there is sufficient on-street parking. This is not an application to which Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 applies. Consequently, although it is material that the Council wishes to control parking in the interests of highway safety, prior approval is only required for the specific grounds set out in paragraph O.2(a). As such, while useful in assessing likely impacts, the policy is not decisive.”].

August 2018 - Code P3CO-271 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impacts of noise” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
  • 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 unacceptable. (*)
    [Quote: “The Council is concerned that the details do not show how cycles would be stored adequately. I agree such details are necessary to demonstrate the proposal would accord with sustainable transport aims. I note the plans state an overhead bike hanging rack would be installed in the stairwell and I acknowledge the details submitted showing the type of hanging solution proposed. However, I am not satisfied that this could be installed in a way that it would be comfortable to use whilst also ensuring an appropriate means of access to the flat such that it may in fact discourage day to day cycle use, particularly in wet weather, when it would be problematic storing a wet and dirty cycle. Thus with the absence of any detailed evidence to the contrary for convenience reasons I find it highly unlikely that such a measure would be used on a daily basis by future occupiers.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “contamination risks on the site”, assessed the safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “I acknowledge the appeal building is occupied and used daily as an office/studio as part of a wider building which accommodates a number of residential units and the building has undergone extensive refurbishment. However, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised concerns that due to the age of the building there may be asbestos present. I note the appellant’s assurances that this is not the case. I have also considered the basic contaminated land assessment conducted by the Council on the appellant’s behalf. However, without a detailed survey of the building undertaken by a competent qualified person, I must take a precautionary approach as this could cause a serious health risk to future occupiers; particularly if any such materials are disturbed undertaking any future domestic maintenance or modernisation works once the appeal property is occupied as a dwelling. Thus in light of the Environmental Health Officer comments and with absence of a detail survey of the building and any necessary mitigation measures, I must conclude that the proposed development would give rise to significant contamination risks to future occupiers of the proposed residential use.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development”, assessed the amenity of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “However, the fact remains that the appeal site is in an area where there are a number of commercial uses nearby, including a postal sorting office. Whilst any noise generated from commercial uses nearby may be acceptable for any business occupants of the appeal premises, there is no substantive evidence before me which demonstrates acceptable levels of noise would be experienced for residential occupiers who would occupy the appeal building at different times and would have different levels of tolerance. That said given the proximity of commercial uses, without a detailed assessment of the noise impact arising from nearby commercial uses together with details of any necessary mitigation measures I am not satisfied the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to noise.”].
  • 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: “Thus it would be contrary to the sustainable transport and highway safety aims of the Framework. For the same reasons whilst not determinative it would also conflict with Policies Q13, T3 and T6 of Lambeth's Local Plan (2015) (LP) and Policy 6.9 of the London Plan (2016).”].

August 2018 - Code P3CO-270 (appeal allowed):

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

August 2018 - Code P3CO-269 (appeal allowed):

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

August 2018 - Code P3CO-268 (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 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).