The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 2 additional appeal decisions relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

November 2018 - Code P3CM-105 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short 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), concluded that the building is located in a key shopping area.
  [Quote: “The appeal site is within a 2 storey mid terrace building and consists of a ground floor retail unit which has been vacant for over 4 years and which forms part of a parade of units in the secondary shopping frontage of the Penge District Centre. As such the site is in a key shopping area as defined by the London Plan.”].
• 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.
  [Note: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The site is a few minutes’ walk of numerous retail units on the adjoining high street where a variety of goods are sold. Local shopping provision is considered to be good. I am not therefore convinced the loss of the retail unit at the appeal site would harm the sustainability of the Penge District Centre overall. Nor, given the proximity of the site to alternative retail provision, am I convinced the loss of this retail unit would have a significant harmful effect on the provision of services of the sort that may be provided by a retail unit.”].
• 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.
  [Note: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The site is a few minutes’ walk of numerous retail units on the adjoining high street where a variety of goods are sold. Local shopping provision is considered to be good. I am not therefore convinced the loss of the retail unit at the appeal site would harm the sustainability of the Penge District Centre overall. Nor, given the proximity of the site to alternative retail provision, am I convinced the loss of this retail unit would have a significant harmful effect on the provision of services of the sort that may be provided by a retail unit.”].
• 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 relating to bicycle parking, and 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: Conditions relating to parking permits, and materials (samples)].

November 2018 - Code P3CM-104 (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 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).