“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 125) …

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:

October 2019 - Code P3CM-125 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “impact of the change of use” = no assessment.
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (short assessment).
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the submitted information indicates that operational development (which does not fall within the scope of M(b) and M.1(f), and for which planning permission has been granted) would be carried out, and the Inspector concluded that prior approval should not be refused on this basis. (*)
    [Note: For this current application for prior approval, the “EXISTING” drawings do not show the works subject of the 2015 planning permission, whereas the “PROPOSED” drawings do show the works subject of the 2015 planning permission].
    [Note: The Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “There is some dispute between the parties as to whether a previously approved planning application has been implemented for a single storey rear extension to provide one new living unit. The submitted prior approval plans show the approved extension beyond the two storey outrigger and the three store buildings extending up to the rear plot boundary, that would need to be demolished to make way for the extension. In its officer report (which is also its Statement) the Council say the planning permission has expired. However, the appellant claims that works have commenced with the demolition of the outbuildings and that the extension foundations have been excavated and concreted in. The Council has not submitted any subsequent documentation or evidence to the contrary to make me doubt this. Notwithstanding that, as clarified in the appellant’s appeal statement, the prior approval application was to convert part of the existing shop into a residential unit. It follows that, regardless of the status of the extension works (which houses residential accommodation), the prior approval application does not relate to the single storey rear extension which was the subject of the previous planning application.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that works to the property would fall within the scope of M(b) and M.1(f). [Note: In other words, the works would constitute “building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building” and the works would not consist of “demolition (other than partial demolition which is reasonably necessary to convert the building)”].
    [Quote: “Criterion M.1(f) specifies that development should not consist of demolition (other than partial demolition which is reasonably necessary to convert the building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouse). Internal walls between the ‘shop’ and ‘staff’ areas would be removed as would a mono-pitched polycarbonate roof that currently infills the side yard between the side boundary wall and ‘shop and staff’ area. This would in my view be ‘reasonably necessary’ demolition.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the development was not begun before the developer successfully completed the prior approval process.
    [Quote: “Part W(11) requires that work must not begin before the appellant has received written notification from the Council. The prior approval proposal does not require the demolition of any outriggers or buildings. As noted above, any demolition of these outbuildings that has already taken place as part of the already approved application falls outside the scope of the prior approval. It therefore follows that the prior approval application cannot be refused for the demolition works that have been carried out for a different scheme under a previous planning permission.”].
  • 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.
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to s106 agreement relating to vehicle parking].
    [Note: The Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “I observed on my visit that parking in the area was limited and would be in demand as the site is within a Controlled Parking Zone whereby parking spaces are controlled by resident parking permits. The prior approval scheme would result in the creation of an extra 1-bedroom unit and would place an additional strain on the existing on-street parking spaces, which without being addressed would result in an unacceptable highway impact. With that in mind, the appellant has completed a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) under section 106 of the Act which would secure a financial payment of £2,000 towards the variation of the Borough of Watford (Controlled Parking Zones) (Consolidation) Order 2010 so that future residents of the development will not be entitled to a residents’ parking permit in the vicinity of the site. I consider that the agreement would meet the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) as amended as it would be necessary, relevant and fairly related to the proposed development. I therefore find that this resolves the issue and the proposal now accords with the transport and highways condition in Class M.2(a).”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) concluded that the resulting site would constitute “a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses)”.
    [Note: The residential unit would have a floor area of 24m2].
    [Note: The Inspector awarded costs against the Council in relation to this issue].
    [Quote: “For the purposes of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO a ’dwellinghouse’ can be a building containing one or more flats, or a flat contained within such a building. However, it does not stipulate a minimum floor area. I acknowledge that the proposed floor area of 24m2 would be small. However, the proposed unit would have a kitchen and living area, shower and WC and a bedroom and therefore would provide the necessary facilities for day-to-day living such as required for cooking, eating, washing and sleeping albeit in a restricted space. Therefore, I find it would constitute a ‘dwellinghouse’ as required by the GPDO. Furthermore, I note a previous Inspector came to a similar conclusion when determining an appeal at a nearby property [June 2018 - Code P3CM-095]. I therefore find the proposal would accord with condition Class M.2(e).”].
  • 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: s106 agreement relating to parking permits].

October 2019 - Code P3CM-124 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2019 - Code P3CM-123 (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 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).