“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 114) …

The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - 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:

April 2019 - Code P3CM-114 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = no assessment.
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impact of the change of use” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • 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.
    [Quote: “The appeal site, while part of a short terrace of commercial properties, is only a short walk to the main shopping area further along High Street and there are a number of other vacant properties from which services could be provided. The site has not made a contribution to the commercial activity of the area for some time despite some footfall in the area and there would remain ample provision of services both within the immediate area around the appeal site and within walking distance. I therefore find that the loss of this single vacant unit would not have an undesirable impact on the adequate provision for services.”].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “In so far as they are relevant to the matters relating to the requirements of Paragraph M.2(1)(d)(i), there would be no conflict with Policy 96 of the Bromley Local Plan.”].

April 2019 - Code P3CM-113 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = no assessment.
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impact of the change of use” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
  • 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].
    [Quote: “The Council has drawn my attention to the development plan policies it considers to be relevant to this appeal. However, the principle of development is established through the grant of permission by the GPDO. Whilst the Council’s policies may be relevant insofar as they relate to the prior approval matters, in my determination of this appeal they have not, by themselves, been decisive.”].
  • 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 property consists of a retail unit on the eastern side of London Road that is currently vacant. It is within the boundary of Mitcham Town Centre, which is identified as a District Centre in the development plan. As such, and based on the evidence before me, I consider that the property is located within a ‘key shopping area’ for the purposes of the GPDO.”].
  • 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.
    [Quote: “The vast majority of the shopping parades within Mitcham Town Centre are defined either as ‘core’ or ‘secondary’ shopping frontages on the Policies Map. However, the appeal site is situated within a parade that is neither a ‘core’ nor ‘secondary’ frontage. The decision to designate it in this way was presumably evidence-based. I further note that the parade is in a relatively peripheral location within the centre and is separated from the parades to the south by a wide access road serving a multi storey car park. In my view, it clearly falls outside of the main shopping areas within the centre. At the time of my site visit a number of nearby retail premises were vacant. In addition, the appeal site itself has been vacant for over a year and would require a complete fit out prior to re-use. A marketing report has also been submitted that indicates that there is little interest in the property for retail purposes. The Council has not sought to challenge the findings of this report in its Appeal Statement. [...] For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed change of use would not significantly undermine the sustainability of Mitcham Town Centre. Whilst Policy DM R4 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014) is not permissive of residential uses in town centre shopping frontages, in this case the principle of development is established by the GPDO.”].
  • 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.
    [Quote: “Separately, I note that a significant number of shops and facilities operate within Mitcham Town Centre that provide for the day-to-day needs of local residents. The proposal would therefore not result in an unacceptable impact on the adequate provision of services in the centre.”].

April 2019 - Code P3CM-112 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2019 - Code P3CM-111 (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 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 4 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).