“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 103) …

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:

September 2018 - Code P3CM-103 (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” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (short assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering issue M.2(1)(d), assessed the impact of the change of use on adequate provision of services (albeit only where there is a reasonable prospect of the building being used to provide such services) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “The shop unit has been vacant for some 5 years. The appellant has submitted evidence of a marketing exercise that commenced earlier this year in which no response has been received to date. I can attach only limited weight to this in relation to the brevity of the exercise. However, at the time of my visit, the site was within a row of 4 vacant units. There were other units undergoing conversion works to residential use, such as at 150 Maple Road. The majority of occupied shop units in the vicinity of the site were in use for non-retail uses, such as for uses within Classes A3 and A5. Given the long vacancy of the unit and the pattern of activity at neighbouring units, I consider that there is not a reasonable prospect of the unit being used to provide a Class A1 service.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering issue M.2(1)(d), assessed the impact of the change of use on the sustainability of a key shopping area and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Quote: “The requirement under Paragraph M.2(1)(d)(ii) of the GPDO is to determine if the retail unit is located in a key shopping area; and if so, whether the change to residential use would harm the sustainability of that shopping area. The term ‘key shopping area’ is not defined in the GPDO. But the site is identified as part of the Penge District Shopping Centre in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (2006) (UDP) and emerging Local Plan. The Council points to encouragement within the London Plan (2015) to regard such identification as amounting to a ‘key shopping area’. However, even accepting this, given the peripheral location of the appeal site and the size and present vitality of the primary shopping frontages, my findings are that the change to residential use would not harm the sustainability of the wider shopping area.”].
  • 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 requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and conditions relating to bicycle parking, details of windows and doors, and details of materials].
  • 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 relating to parking permits].

September 2018 - Code P3CM-102 (appeal dismissed):

  • 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 building was not used as retail (etc) on 20/03/2013 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 M.1(a)].
    [Quote: “The appellant points out that a breach of the lease does not necessarily amount to a change to a Class A3 use. My attention has also been drawn to guidance from Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and from Government Circular 03/2005 about ancillary uses, particularly in the context of sandwich bars also selling a limited amount of hot food for customers to eat on the premises including at tables at their establishments. Whilst accepting that it is possible for a sandwich bar to have an ancillary use as the appellant suggests, on the basis of the information available, it seems to me that the use for hot food for consumption on the premises was more than ancillary in nature. It is not a large shop unit and the presence of tables and chairs would have taken a significant proportion of the floor area. The absence of an enforcement record does not mean that a change of use had not taken place. Whilst the lawful use was previously a Class A1 shop, I am obliged to consider the actual use in 2013. In view of the doubt that remains, I am therefore unable to conclude that the appeal property was used for a use falling within Class A1 (shops) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order on 20 March 2013, or last used for that purpose before that, if not in use on that date. The proposed development is therefore not permitted by Class M of the GPDO.”].
  • The phrase “used for one of the uses referred to in Class M(a)” within M.1(a) refers to the actual use of the building (i.e. rather than the lawful use of the building). (*)
    [Quote: “Whilst accepting that it is possible for a sandwich bar to have an ancillary use as the appellant suggests, on the basis of the information available, it seems to me that the use for hot food for consumption on the premises was more than ancillary in nature. It is not a large shop unit and the presence of tables and chairs would have taken a significant proportion of the floor area. The absence of an enforcement record does not mean that a change of use had not taken place. Whilst the lawful use was previously a Class A1 shop, I am obliged to consider the actual use in 2013. In view of the doubt that remains, I am therefore unable to conclude that the appeal property was used for a use falling within Class A1 (shops) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order on 20 March 2013, or last used for that purpose before that, if not in use on that date. The proposed development is therefore not permitted by Class M of the GPDO.”].

September 2018 - Code P3CM-101 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2018 - Code P3CM-100 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2018 - Code P3CM-099 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2018 - Code P3CM-099 (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).