The "GPDO Part 3 Class M - Prior Approval 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:

March 2020 - Code P3CM-138 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph M.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = unacceptable (short 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 the impact of delivery and servicing vehicles and concluded that this would be acceptable.
  [Note: The Inspector assessed the impact of delivery and servicing vehicles for the resulting smaller retail (etc) unit (i.e. rather than for the resulting residential unit(s))].
  [Quote: “I could see that the rear service yard is difficult to navigate for deliveries to the existing unit due to the cluttered nature of the service yard area and its general layout. I can therefore appreciate that the [front] loading bay has been well used by this unit, which is confirmed by the previous tenant, and, bearing in mind the arrangement of the rear service yard, this [front] loading bay is very likely to support other units along the parade. There is nothing before me to suggest that the existing [front] loading bay is insufficient to cope with demand. This leads me to the view that deliveries taken exclusively from the [front] loading bay would not result in any greater transport and highway impacts than currently exists.”].
• 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: “Cycle storage is proposed within the narrow and shared pathway leading to the floors above the shops along the parade, or within the space below the external staircase to the flats above, however this space was occupied by other paraphernalia. The service yard area could be utilised for refuse storage. However, it has not been demonstrated how storage of both kinds can be acceptably accommodated without causing a direct impact on transport and highways.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed waste and recycling storage and concluded that this would be unacceptable. (*)
  [Quote: “Cycle storage is proposed within the narrow and shared pathway leading to the floors above the shops along the parade, or within the space below the external staircase to the flats above, however this space was occupied by other paraphernalia. The service yard area could be utilised for refuse storage. However, it has not been demonstrated how storage of both kinds can be acceptably accommodated without causing a direct impact on transport and highways.”].
• 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: “In respect of criterion (ii) set out in paragraph M.2(1)(d) of the GPDO which seeks to assess the desirability, or otherwise, of a change of use of the building due to its location in a key shopping area, the GDPO does not define a ‘key shopping area’. However, the Council sets out that the site is located within the District Centre of Neasden. [...] Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposal would reduce the sustainability of the shopping area.”].
• 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.
  [Note: The proposed conversion would result in a new smaller retail (etc) unit].
  [Quote: “The appellant explains that the centre has one of the highest proportions of vacant primary frontage units in the Borough of Brent. However, no precise details have been submitted to substantiate this claim, and equally there is no evidence presented to demonstrate that the unit, as proposed, would be more desirable to let. There is no evidence presented of proprietors wanting to occupy the premises at the size proposed. From what I could see on site, the parade consists of fairly low vacancy rates. Opposite the parade, the retail and other offer was extensive, with limited vacancy levels and a variety of unit sizes. Other local shopping streets in general offers much customer choice, have a good occupancy level, and a vibrancy to it with high footfall. The proposed reduction in size of the storage area of approximately 162sqm to approximately 14sqm, and significantly smaller when compared to the remaining retail space, would, in my view, disadvantage the opportunity to successfully let the unit. There would be no flexibility to store additional stock which could reduce its appeal to potential occupiers. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposal would reduce the sustainability of the shopping area.”].

March 2020 - Code P3CM-137 (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 "GPDO Part 3 Class M - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website 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).