“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 296) …

The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

March 2019 - Code P3CO-296 (appeal allowed):

  • 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” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was used as B1(a) on 29/05/2013 or (if not in use on that date) when it was last in use. [Note: In other words, the proposed development would comply with O.1(b)].
    [Quote: “The extent of the site for which the prior application was made is clear, within the wider site. Excel Shipping Limited occupied the site as offices for over 20 years and Class B1(a) can be taken to be the lawful use. No other use has been shown to have been established or permitted on the date in the Order of 29 May 2013. A further period of ten years has not yet elapsed in which any other lawful use can be said to have been established by the passage of time. Therefore, the permitted individual use of the appeal building within the wider site are thus those incidental to the overall use as a Class B1(a) office. Such permitted usage is consistent with the proximity of the buildings to each other, the appeal building being located in close proximity to the main building. In line with the principle, set out in Article 3(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), that an incidental use is not excluded from the use to which it is incidental merely because that incidental use is specified in the Schedule to the Order as a separate use, I conclude that the lawful use of the appeal building is as ancillary to Class B1(a) office and thus Class B1(a) offices.”].
  • 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 requiring the development to be completed within 3 years, and requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and condition relating to parking permits].

March 2019 - Code P3CO-295 (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 the Inspector concluded that the development is contrary to the wording of an article 4 direction.
    [Quote: “The Council made a Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the 1995 Order) on 4 November 2013. The effect was to ensure that all changes of use from B1 (a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) required planning permission after 30 November 2014. Before its publication, the Direction was modified by the Secretary of State. This modification excluded from the Direction any building or land in relation to which prior approval under paragraph J.2 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the 1995 Order had been granted or, under the Terms of that part, was treated as granted, before 30 November 2014. [...] In my opinion, the Secretary of State’s modification made it clear that any building or land to which prior approval had been granted under the relevant paragraph of the 1995 Order was excluded from the Direction. It therefore ensured that the then recently granted prior approvals on the appeal site would not be compromised. Consequently, they remained capable of being implemented under the terms of Class J, Part 3, Schedule 2 of the 1995 Order. However, the prior approvals were not implemented. The terms of development permitted by Class J of the 1995 Order were quite clear and they required implementation before 30 May 2016. The implementation period has therefore long since expired. Indeed, it had expired long before the prior approval application that is the subject of this appeal was made. Therefore, under the terms of Class J of the 1995 Order, the previously granted prior approvals have now lapsed and can no longer be implemented. [...] Without the modification, the developer would have been unable to implement the prior approvals that already existed. It was therefore a clear and unambiguous intervention to provide certainty for the existing prior approvals. However, as identified above, the requirements of Class J were not fulfilled. Therefore, in the absence of any valid prior approvals and due to the original time constraints allowed by Class J expiring, it follows that the requirements of the Article 4(1) Direction is now fully applicable to the appeal site.”].

March 2019 - Code P3CO-294 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2019 - Code P3CO-293 (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 34 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).