“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 121) …

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

July 2019 - Code P3CM-121 (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” = no assessment.
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was used as retail (etc) on 20/03/2013 or (if not in use on that date) when it was last in use. [Note: In other words, the proposed development would comply with M.1(a)].
    [Quote: “I note that the appellant has submitted evidence which includes an affidavit showing that the outbuilding was used continuously for retail storage purposes between December 2008 and May 2017. Furthermore, the Council’s Officer report states that it provided a storage function ancillary to the adjacent A1 unit and, in my view, it falls within the curtilage of the main building. From the evidence before me, and on the balance of probability, I am therefore satisfied that the outbuilding was ancillary to the retail use at the main building on 20 March 2013.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the lawful use of the building is not retail (etc). [Note: In other words, the proposed development would not comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class M].
    [Quote: “Nonetheless, to comply with limitation M(a) (i) of Class M, the outbuilding must have a current A1 use. To my mind, an ancillary A1 use would meet this requirement. However, it does not appear as though such a use could exist without the A1 use of the main building. It therefore seems to me that a current A1 use of the outbuilding is dependent on there being an existing A1 use at the main building. I now proceed to consider this matter. The giving of prior approval in itself at the main building would not result in the loss of the A1 use. However, I saw on site that this prior approval has been implemented. The signage for the original shop appeared to have been removed and internal works to facilitate the conversion were well underway. Consequently, the on-going conversion has changed the character of the site so that the A1 use at the main building is no longer perceptible. In my view, this has started a new chapter in the planning history of the main building, in which its former A1 use has been lost. It therefore follows that the outbuilding cannot have an ancillary A1 use and fails to comply with limitation M(a) (i) of Class M.”].

July 2019 - Code P3CM-120 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2019 - Code P3CM-119 (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 5 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).