The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 4 additional appeal decisions relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

November 2019 - Code P3CM-129 (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” = acceptable (short assessment).
  - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
• 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 proposed change of use would be for part of the rear of the shop and therefore the shopfront and a retail unit would be retained within the shopping frontage. The Council considers the reduced storage space available to the retained unit would impact on the future viability of the unit by reducing its flexibility and therefore its appeal to a wide variety of occupiers. However, whilst it is possible that a shop with limited storage could be less attractive to some potential users, I have no evidence to that effect. Given the nature of the shopping centre as a whole with a low vacancy rate, there is nothing before me to suggest that an occupant could not be found. Indeed, it may be that a smaller unit could be more appealing to occupants seeking a lower rent within the town centre. Since the retail unit is to be retained, albeit with a reduction in storage, I conclude that the change of use would not have an adverse impact on the sustainability of the shopping area.”].
• 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. (*)
  [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to bicycle parking].
  [Quote: “I have considered the Council’s suggested condition requiring the provision of details of cycle storage against the advice set out in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. I have imposed this in the interests of supporting increased cycling in accordance with the London Plan.”].
• 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 relating to bicycle parking].

November 2019 - Code P3CM-128 (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, 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: “As to whether it is undesirable for the change of use to take place, the Framework seeks the protection of ‘town centre’ uses, which would not include this local shopping parade. However it also seeks to plan positively for community facilities such as local shops, in order to provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services needed by the community. Local planning policies also seek to protect local shopping facilities from redevelopment where there is an economic demand for such services, and require reasonable attempts to show that the shop is no longer viable before a change of use would be permitted. Here, the proposal is to convert part only of the shop, retaining some 23 sqm for retail use. It has not been demonstrated whether a shop of such reduced size would be a viable proposition, or whether it would meet retail demand in the area. On my site visit I saw that [the highway] has an active local shopping parade, although with some vacant premises. No analysis has been provided concerning the economic demand for retail provision in the area, and accordingly I am unable to conclude that the proposed change of use would not be undesirable.”].

November 2019 - Code P3CM-127 (appeal dismissed):

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

November 2019 - Code P3CM-126 (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).