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:

June 2019 - Code P3CM-118 (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” = unacceptable (short assessment).
  - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) concluded that it is possible to submit an application for prior approval relating to only part of a building.
  [Quote: “The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached building with first floor as a residential use and ground floor retail use. The retail unit, as illustrated on the drawing of the existing ground floor, comprises the shop at the front, and office and staff room in the middle and the shop store at the back. The proposal is a part change of use, as it is only intended to change the store at the back to a 1 bedroom self-contained flat. The retail use would be partly retained to the front of the property. The site is located within the Lancaster Road Large Local Centre. The Council argue that the scope of the development would not comply with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the GPDO. It contends that the building does not form a separate planning unit and the development would constitute a subdivision of the planning unit: I disagree. For the purposes of the GPDO, “building” includes any structure or erection and, except in Class F of Part 2, Classes P and PA of Part 3, Class B of Part 11, Classes A to I of Part 14, Classes A, B and C of Part 16 and Class T of Part 19, of Schedule 2, includes any part of a building. Given the precise and clear terminology used in Class M subsection (a) and (b), there is nothing to suggest the concept of planning unit is determinative.”].
• 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 unacceptable.
  [Note: The proposed conversion would result in a new smaller retail (etc) unit].
  [Quote: “The proposal would result in the severance of the storage area from the retain unit. The appellant’s argument is that the retail unit’s size would be similar to other comparable premises within the locality. The contention is that the retail unit would function without the storeroom. However, the layout of the appeal site indicates that the storeroom is ancillary to the shop and serves as storage area. The information provided does not sufficiently show how the shop would in practice function without the storage space. Additionally, there is nothing of substance to support the claim that the conversion would have no effect on the local shopping centre. On the balance of probabilities, I find that it would be undesirable for part of the building to change to a dwelling-house. This is because the evidence presented does not clearly and precisely show that the development would not impact on adequate provision of services of the sort that may be provided by the retail unit, nor explain how it would not affect the sustainability of the local shopping area. There is therefore a failure to meet condition M2 sub-section (d) (i) and (ii) of Class M Part 3 to the GPDO.”].
• 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: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
• 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 proposed conversion would result in a new smaller retail (etc) unit].
  [Quote: “The proposal would result in the severance of the storage area from the retain unit. The appellant’s argument is that the retail unit’s size would be similar to other comparable premises within the locality. The contention is that the retail unit would function without the storeroom. However, the layout of the appeal site indicates that the storeroom is ancillary to the shop and serves as storage area. The information provided does not sufficiently show how the shop would in practice function without the storage space. Additionally, there is nothing of substance to support the claim that the conversion would have no effect on the local shopping centre. On the balance of probabilities, I find that it would be undesirable for part of the building to change to a dwelling-house. This is because the evidence presented does not clearly and precisely show that the development would not impact on adequate provision of services of the sort that may be provided by the retail unit, nor explain how it would not affect the sustainability of the local shopping area. There is therefore a failure to meet condition M2 sub-section (d) (i) and (ii) of Class M Part 3 to the GPDO.”].

June 2019 - Code P3CM-117 (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 5 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).