The "GPDO Part 3 Class O - Prior Approval 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:

April 2019 - Code P3CO-300 (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 a condition (on a previous planning permission), which restricts the use of the property but doesn’t refer to the GPDO, does remove permitted development rights under Part 3 of the GPDO. (*)
  [Note: The Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].

April 2019 - Code P3CO-299 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph O.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
  - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
  - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  - “impacts of noise” = no assessment.
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not a material consideration. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Quote: “Since the Council’s decision, the Kirklees Local Plan (Local Plan) has been adopted. Policies in the Local Plan supersede saved policies within the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan (UDP). While UDP policies are no longer relevant and the Local Plan policies now carry full weight, paragraph W (10) of the GPDO states that the local planning authority must, when determining an application have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application. As such, despite reference to Local Plan policies PLP21 and PLP22 in the evidence before me, I have determined the appeal having regard to the provisions within the Framework.”].
• 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.
  [Quote: “Even though sustainable modes of transport would be available to future occupants, for the reasons explained above, I am of the view that future occupants would be heavily reliant on the use of private motor vehicles. Carpooling may lessen the singular use of vehicles, but it would not wholly change matters. The Council suggest that two spaces per apartment is necessary. The reason for this level of provision is not explained, but this would probably amount to an over-provision. That said, equally, there is the potential for more vehicles than the appellant company’s estimates. If true, any vehicles unable to park in the designated spaces would make use of Green Lane in front of the site to park. There are no restrictions here. Road users travelling along Green Lane, Washpit New Road and Rich Gate would not be travelling at speed due to the width and alignment of the roads, coupled with the junction of the three roads near to the site. The lane would also enable road users to pass any parked vehicle, and suitable visibility for the surroundings. [...] In drawing these matters together, I consider that the appeal scheme would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Nor would the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. I conclude that the transport and highways impacts of the proposed development would be satisfactory having regard to Framework paragraphs 108 and 109.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the manoeuvring of vehicles on the site (e.g. entering, exiting, and moving within the site) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Quote: “Concern is expressed by the Council about the accessibility of a number of the proposed parking spaces. Spaces 1 to 3 and 12 and 13 would result in vehicles either reversing into or out of these spaces onto Green Lane. I agree that the proposed arrangements are not ideal, but these arrangements appear to have been in place in conjunction with the office use. There is no suggestion that this led to highway safety issues or that users were unable to safely access these spaces. While there would be nothing to prevent future occupants or visitors from parking on the road, this would not be as a result of the proposed parking arrangements which are more likely to be used by future occupants and visitors for reasons of safety and convenience among others.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when granting prior approval, decided that a particular condition (or s106 agreement) should be imposed.
  [Note: Conditions relating to vehicle parking spaces (including electric charging point), and bicycle parking].

April 2019 - Code P3CO-298 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2019 - Code P3CO-297 (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 O - 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 34 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).