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:

November 2018 - Code P3CO-283 (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” = no assessment.
  - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
• 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 unacceptable.
  [Note: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “Overall, taking into account all of the above, the proposals would fail to meet with residential standards for off-street parking provision in terms of number of spaces and the proposed arrangements and space sizes. Wollaston is also poorly served by public transport. This would necessitate the use of [the highway] to park and in light of the acute lack of capacity along this road, I consider that the proposals would have an unacceptable impact upon highway safety and a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network. While I accept that the extant use of the site also relies upon on-street parking, I do not consider that this justifies the proposals before me which would continue and would increase the harm to highway safety.”].

November 2018 - Code P3CO-282 (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” = acceptable (short assessment).
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the lawful use of the site (i.e. the building and any land within its curtilage) is not B1(a). [Note: In other words, the proposed development would not comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class O].
  [Quote: “There is no dispute between the parties that on 29 May 2013 the building was in Class B1(a) use and I have no reason to disagree with them. There was also no dispute that at the time this prior approval application was determined by the Council that the building was in Class B1(a) use. Nevertheless, for the permitted development right to apply the building must be offices in order to benefit from Class O. In other words, the use must not have changed from Class B1(a) to another use between the relevant date and the time that the appeal, in this case, is considered. It was clear that at the time of my site visit that the works to convert the parts of the building that comprise the prior approval for 54 dwellings have been substantially completed and signage at the entrance to the building states that show apartments are open to view. Consequently, it would appear that these parts of the building are no longer in Class B1(a) use. I acknowledge that works to convert the part of the building that forms the appeal site do not appear to have commenced. However, I have little evidence to indicate that the whole building should not be treated as a single planning unit. As such, based on the evidence before me, I consider that the building does not appear to currently be within Class B1(a) use. I, therefore, must conclude that the change of use would not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O of the GPDO and therefore is not development permitted by it.”].
• 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 acceptable.
  [Quote: “The Council have accepted that the submitted Acoustic Reports and details of the proposed mechanical heat recovery ventilation/cooling system demonstrate that the future occupiers of the building would not be adversely affected by the noise arising from commercial premises. I consider that if I was minded to allow this appeal a suitably worded condition could secure the implementation of the proposed mechanical heat recovery ventilation/cooling system within this part of the building. As such, I conclude that the development would not result in harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the development with regard to noise from commercial premises.”].

November 2018 - Code P3CO-281 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2018 - Code P3CO-280 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2018 - Code P3CO-279 (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).