The "GPDO Part 3 Class M - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

February 2019 - Code P3CM-110 (appeal dismissed):

• 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” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
  - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
  [Quote: “The Council has referred to Policy CP18 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (2010) which relates to the delivery of shopping provision across Enfield and Policy DMD28 of the Improving Enfield Development Management Document (2014) which states that change of use from A class within local centres will be refused unless the proposed use provides a service that is compatible with and appropriate to the local centre. Whilst this prior approval appeal is not determined on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Policies CP18 and DMD28 are relevant to the planning judgement to be made on this main issue.”].
• 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 main parties are agreed that the site lies within Bounces Road Local Centre. This shopping area spans both sides of Bounces Road and given the wide range of shops and services available I would regard it as a key shopping area.”].
• 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 unacceptable.
  [Quote: “The development would involve the introduction of brickwork infill to the shopfront windows and the insertion of a window of domestic scale. In combination with the ground floor of No. 68 which already presents a similar face to the street, this would result in a significant part of the ground floor of the terrace of buildings having a ‘dead frontage’. Given the contribution which the terrace makes to the character and appearance of the shopping parade, which I have identified, this could dissuade future occupiers of the future viability of the shop unit and vitality of this part of the Local Centre. [...] In summary I find that the loss of a shop unit from this prominent location within Bounces Road Local Centre would have an adverse impact on the sustainability of this key shopping area. The development therefore fails to accord with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M, Paragraph M.2. Condition 1 (d).”].
• 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 acceptable. (*)
  [Quote: “The Council makes it clear that its concerns regarding transport and highways impacts are limited to the arrangements to be made for refuse and recycling storage and cycle parking and based on the lack of information about such facilities. The appellants have clarified that both refuse/recycling storage and cycle parking could be accommodated in an enclosed yard to the rear of the building. Given the very limited information before me regarding the access to and the dimensions of the yard, I am unable to judge whether it would be able to accommodate cycle parking and refuse/recycling stores. However given the limited scale of the development and the nature of the existing use, which would have generated a need for these facilities, the proposed use would not have a significant adverse impact on transport or highways. Therefore it accords with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M, Paragraph M.2. Condition 1 (a).”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed waste and recycling storage and concluded that this would be acceptable. (*)
  [Quote: “The Council makes it clear that its concerns regarding transport and highways impacts are limited to the arrangements to be made for refuse and recycling storage and cycle parking and based on the lack of information about such facilities. The appellants have clarified that both refuse/recycling storage and cycle parking could be accommodated in an enclosed yard to the rear of the building. Given the very limited information before me regarding the access to and the dimensions of the yard, I am unable to judge whether it would be able to accommodate cycle parking and refuse/recycling stores. However given the limited scale of the development and the nature of the existing use, which would have generated a need for these facilities, the proposed use would not have a significant adverse impact on transport or highways. Therefore it accords with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M, Paragraph M.2. Condition 1 (a).”].

February 2019 - Code P3CM-109 (appeal dismissed):

• 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” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
  - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the issue of the impacts of noise is not a material consideration.
  [Note: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The Council has referred to insufficient information having been submitted to determine the potential noise pollution impact of the development with particular regard to the need for an acoustic report to determine commercial noise impacts. This is not a matter for consideration as part of the Prior Approval process under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), therefore I have not given any consideration to such impacts as part of my determination of this appeal.”].
• 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.
  [Note: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The appeal site is close to the junction of Great Cambridge Road and Carterhatch Lane, which has multiple lanes and traffic is controlled by a complex series of traffic lights. A Toby Carvery restaurant and its car park occupy the corner site with [the application site] adjacent. Further along Great Cambridge Road are two retail units which currently accommodate hot food takeaways. The shopfront to [the application site], which at the time of my site visit were occupied by a supermarket, spans the entire frontage of the two buildings and is prominent in the street scene. Its wide, open appearance contributes significantly to the group of commercial uses’ sense of vitality. The road junction is a significant constraint in terms of access between the appeal site and the small and large scale retail premises on the opposite side of Great Cambridge Road and the parade of shops diagonally opposite the Toby Carvery. However there are crossing points near the appeal site which allow for some interaction between the customers of the wider group of retail premises. Overall I would regard the site as being within a key shopping area.”].
• 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 unacceptable.
  [Note: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The development would involve the removal of the shopfront, the installation of brickwork to the ground floor elevation and insertion of windows and doors of a domestic scale. This would result in a significant part of the ground floor of the group of four commercial buildings having a ‘dead frontage’. Given the contribution which the existing shop use and associated shopfront make to the character and appearance of the shopping parade, which I have identified above, this could dissuade future occupiers of the neighbouring units and consequently have a significantly harmful effect on the viability and vitality of this part of the key shopping area. [...] In summary I find that the loss of a shop unit from this prominent location would have a significantly adverse impact on the sustainability of this key shopping area. The development therefore fails to accord with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M, Paragraph M.2. Condition 1 (d).”].
• 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: “The appellants clarify in their statement that there would be no car parking space provided for the residents of the flats and that cycle parking and refuse storage would be accommodated on the existing forecourt. The Council has not made any observations in the light of this. Given the limited number of flats proposed and the scale and nature of the shop use, which I would expect to generate a demand for car parking, cycle parking and refuse storage/collection, the development would not have a significant adverse impact on transport or highways. Therefore it accords with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M, Paragraph M.2. Condition 1 (a).”].
• 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 acceptable. (*)
  [Note: The Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
  [Quote: “The appellants clarify in their statement that there would be no car parking space provided for the residents of the flats and that cycle parking and refuse storage would be accommodated on the existing forecourt. The Council has not made any observations in the light of this. Given the limited number of flats proposed and the scale and nature of the shop use, which I would expect to generate a demand for car parking, cycle parking and refuse storage/collection, the development would not have a significant adverse impact on transport or highways. Therefore it accords with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M, Paragraph M.2. Condition 1 (a).”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed waste and recycling storage 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 appellants clarify in their statement that there would be no car parking space provided for the residents of the flats and that cycle parking and refuse storage would be accommodated on the existing forecourt. The Council has not made any observations in the light of this. Given the limited number of flats proposed and the scale and nature of the shop use, which I would expect to generate a demand for car parking, cycle parking and refuse storage/collection, the development would not have a significant adverse impact on transport or highways. Therefore it accords with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M, Paragraph M.2. Condition 1 (a).”].

February 2019 - Code P3CM-108 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2019 - Code P3CM-107 (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 "GPDO Part 3 Class M - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website 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 3 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).