The "GPDO Part 3 Class M - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 2 additional appeal decisions relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

May 2019 - Code P3CM-116 (appeal allowed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
  - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
  - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
  - “impact of the change of use” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
  - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (short assessment).
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not a material consideration. (*)
  [Quote: “On the above point I note from the Council’s representations that it considers that the proposal would not comply with policies ED6 and ED10 of the Lambeth Local Plan, both of which are used to assess the loss of a Class A2 use. However, the development plan in such instances is not a material consideration, as the appeal does not relate to an application for planning permission and the terms of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 do not apply. The absence of acceptable marketing evidence is therefore not material to the assessment. Planning permission is granted instead for the change of use by virtue of article 3(1) of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, subject to the prior approval procedure.”].
• 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.
  [Note: The proposed conversion would result in a new smaller retail (etc) unit].
  [Quote: “The proposal would retain the building’s commercial frontage and presence given that it is intended to keep the ‘shop’ unit, albeit with a reduced floorspace. However, from my site visit I noted that only the ground floor front room was in current use for office purposes. It would appear from the proposed layout that the proposal would supply a commercial unit (ground floor and basement) of a size attractive to a diverse range of potential users. As a result the development would continue to contribute to the commercial sustainability of the centre as it would not impair, to any material degree, the ability of the local centre to endure at the level it currently operates. Accordingly, I consider that the proposal would not lead to a harmful impact on the sustainability of the local centre.”].
• 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.
  [Note: The proposed conversion would result in a new smaller retail (etc) unit].
  [Quote: “The primary question therefore is whether prior approval is required for the specified grounds set out in paragraph d(i) and not whether the proposal would comply with local policies. Paragraph d(i) requires only that the change of use should not impact undesirably upon the adequate provision of shops and services. At my site visit I noted that the shopping parades on both sides of this stretch of [the highway] contains a mix of uses, mainly Classes A1 and A2, a scattering of vacant premises, and also some having apparently been taken out of commercial use. A range of other shops and services are located close by. [The highway] is also a busy thoroughfare, with good transport links to other shopping parades within proximity. In light of the above, and particularly given that A2 floorspace would be retained, the evidence presented does not demonstrate that the proposal would result in an inadequate level of provision of shops and financial and professional services.”].
• 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: “Given the location of the site, the access to shops, services and public transport, and the size of the unit involved, I consider that the development would be attractive to those without a car, regardless of any obligation. Moreover, the existing use will generate traffic and no compelling evidence has been presented to indicate that conversion to residential use would increase congestion within the local area. Both sides of the street on this stretch of [the highway] are subject to red line restrictions and, save for the Council remarking that parking stress in the area is high, no additional details have been provided on this matter. [...] Based upon the information presented I consider that the highways and transportation impacts of the development would be acceptable without the need for a planning obligation to secure ‘car free’ development. In that regard the government’s planning practice guidance states that, by its nature, permitted development should already be generally acceptable in planning terms and therefore planning obligations would ordinarily not be necessary. I am satisfied that would be the case in this instance and, accordingly, I conclude that there are no grounds to withhold prior approval in relation to highways and transportation matters.”].
• 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: “Regarding the issue of related cycle storage I note that, although the proposed floor plans show a cycle storage cupboard at ground floor level, the Council raises concerns as to it being of inadequate size. However, I have also had regard to a previous Council decision relating to the nearby shop unit, No 106, in the parade. In August 2016 Prior Approval was granted for a change of use of retail to residential (ref 16/03643/P3M), and the background documents have been provided to me. In the Council’s case report for this application the issue of cycle storage was addressed and it was said that, given the site’s constraints and the size of the proposed unit, it is not considered possible to facilitate cycle storage. I concur with this approach, especially given that a cycle could be easily brought into the appeal premises.”].
• 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: Condition requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and conditions relating to materials (to match existing), and waste and recycling storage].
• 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: Condition relating to noise assessment report].

May 2019 - Code P3CM-115 (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 116 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).