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:

January 2019 - Code P3CO-289 (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” = no 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: “As pointed out by the appellant, the change of use of the building has extinguished the previous office use, and the absence of any explicitly expressed intention at the time of conversion to retain the basement area for office use I can see no reason to doubt this, taking into account the other judgements put before me. The plan dated 2014 supplied by the appellant showing amendments to the basement area, simply show part of it walled off, not in the current configuration, and accessed by ramps, suggesting that there was some intention at the time to use it for parking or access for the residential use. The argument that because it is not shown as converted to flats it was not part of the conversion is not, therefore, a persuasive one. Consequently, I am not persuaded that the appeal site is either a separate planning unit, nor that it was intended at any point to be retained in office use. As a result, it does not enjoy permitted development rights for conversion to additional residential accommodation under Class O.”].

January 2019 - Code P3CO-288 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “contamination risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  - “impacts of noise” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
• 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: “The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) produced by [the acoustic consultant] focussed on traffic noise initially, but this has been updated for the appeal with a new section to include the noise from the adjacent industrial units. However, the NIA does not give detailed evidence of the potential noise from the marble works or the other industrial units. The mitigation measures proposed are also in basic terms, stating the use of suitably specified non-opening glazing and ventilation with acoustic attenuation. This information has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the future occupants of the flats would not be subject to undue levels of noise from this adjacent business or whether this mitigation would be sufficient. The proposed condition in this NIA would not be adequate without knowing the full extent of the potential for noise impact.”].
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not the “starting point” (or is not a “decisive” factor). [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: “Whilst the determination of prior approval applications and appeals should be undertaken against the requirements and matters set out in relevant sections of the GPDO, some acknowledgement may be given to policies if they refer to the matters under consideration, although compliance with development plan policy is not required. In this case the proposal would also be not fully accord with the aims of the Hounslow Local Plan policies CC2 and EQ5, which seek to, amongst other things, deliver the right land use mix, have a positive impact on future resident’s amenity, and minimise noise disturbance. I do not regard policy ED2 to be particularly relevant to this proposal, however, as it is focussed on maintaining employment land supply, which is not the particular focus of the GPDO criteria.”].

January 2019 - Code P3CO-287 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2019 - Code P3CO-286 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2019 - Code P3CO-285 (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 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).