The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 1 additional appeal decision relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:
September 2019 - Code P3CM-122 (appeal dismissed):
- This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
- “transport and highways impacts” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
- “contamination risks” = no assessment.
- “flooding risks” = no assessment.
- “impact of the change of use” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
- “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
- 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 unacceptable.
[Quote: “Criterion M.2 (1) (a) requires the Council to determine whether prior approval is required in respect of the transport and highways impacts of the development. I note the Council has stated that the appeal site has a PTAL rating of 5. The Council states that the CPZ, which is not defined, and its vehicle parking restrictions are being extended, however, it acknowledges that it is currently not located within a CPZ and therefore such restrictions would not apply at present. Notwithstanding restrictions would not apply, I acknowledge the appellants willingness to enter into a Section 106 Agreement, which would remove the rights of future occupiers from obtaining on-street parking permits and providing car club membership to the future occupiers of the proposed self-contained flat. However, the Unilateral Undertaking submitted as evidence is not complete and therefore there is no certainty that this obligation would be entered into. As a result, the development proposed would put additional stress for on street parking in the surrounding streets and have an adverse impact on the local transport network.”].
- 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 unacceptable. (*)
[Quote: “The Council states that the development proposed fails to provide adequate cycle storage, which the appellant states is not a matter set out as a prior approval requirement in M2(1). Notwithstanding, the Council’s requirement is disputed, the appellant has submitted evidence of the Council’s policies which clearly indicates that a sustainable pattern of development which reduces the dependency on the private car is being promoted by the Council and that this, including cycling, should be reflected in development proposals. It is therefore a matter related to the transport and highways impact of the development proposed and is relevant in respect of M2(1)(a). Whilst the appellant states that the appeal site has sufficient area to provide such storage, the application plans do not demonstrate how cycle storage provision would be provided. I conclude that in relation to transport and highways matters, the lack of a completed UU and the lack of adequate cycle storage results in the development proposed not complying with the provisions under Class M2 (1) (a) of 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].
[Quote: “Whilst the appellant states that the appeal site is separated from the main shopping area by a residential terrace and this section of the shopping area has a fragmented retail frontage, I noted that there was little evidence of other vacant units in the adjacent parade of shops on Knight’s Hill during my site visit. Moreover, [the application site] did not appear to be divorced from the rest of the shopping area which had active shop and professional services ground floor uses nearby and as a result it does play an important role in the offer West Norwood District 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 the sustainability of a key shopping area and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
[Quote: “I have reviewed the limited amount of evidence submitted by the appellant in respect of the marketing of the retail unit. There is no indication that the retail unit has been marketed extensively since the agent was instructed in November 2017. Whilst the appellant states that the unit had been unsuccessfully marketed for nearly twelve months, there is no evidence to demonstrate the marketing methods used or any marketing reports provided by the agent appointed. Even though the appellant states that it has remained vacant for twelve months, I am not persuaded on the evidence before me that the unit has been actively marketed. In the absence of such evidence the loss of the retail unit would have an adverse impact on the shopping area and would not meet the provisions of Class M 2(1)(d) of the GPDO.”].
- 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).