“Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 2 additional appeal decisions (total = 136) …

The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - 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:

February 2020 - Code P3CM-136 (appeal allowed):

  • 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 lawful use of the building is retail (etc). [Note: In other words, the proposed development would comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class M].
    [Quote: “I have been furnished with the original plans of the building. It is clear to me that the layout of the building was designed with a stock room to support the function of the A1 use within the shopping parade. The stock room is accessed for deliveries via a roller shutter door from the rear service yard offering direct access from the stock room to the retail unit that leads internally through a series of corridors and doors to the back of the retail unit. The stock room is however physically attached to the A1 use at the front. I see no reason for a stock room to be independently identified as having an association with the A1 use, or requiring a shop front for its purpose. Externally, it has the physical characteristics of a stock room. Although the stock room bears a close physical relationship to the A1 use, it has never operated as an A1 role in its own right and I accept it would not be conveniently accessed by members of the public due to the configuration of the layout of the building. However, I am firmly of the view that its purpose is ancillary to the A1 function. [...] There is no evidence presented before me or visibly obvious from site inspection to demonstrate that the stock room functions as a separate use away from its original use, and therefore I apply limited weight to this argument. [...] Taking all these factors into account, I conclude that the stock room functions ancillary to the main retail use and the proposal satisfies the conditions of this prior approval under Class M of the GPDO.”].
  • 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 requiring compliance with the approved drawings].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when granting prior approval, decided that a particular condition (or s106 agreement) should not be imposed.
    [Note: Conditions requiring the development to be carried out within a certain time period, and requiring the building to be used as a dwellinghouse].

February 2020 - Code P3CM-135 (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).