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:

June 2020 - Code P3CM-140 (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 submitted information was sufficient to comply with the requirements of Part 3 paragraph W(2). (*)
  [Note: The submitted information included a site location plan, but this plan “did not appear to be to scale”].
  [Quote: “Paragraph W of Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO sets out what an application made under Class M must be accompanied by. This includes, at paragraph W(2)(b), ‘a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development’. There is no requirement that such plans should be to any particular scale, or that they should be scaled at all. Indeed, there is no specific requirement in the GPDO that sets any particular standard for plan drawing. In addition, the validity of a prior approval application does not depend upon the Council accepting it as a valid application. This is an objective question of law. Thus, the running of time is not dependent on the application being ‘validated’ by the Council. The full suite of original application documents submitted by the appellant is provided at Appendix 2 to his Statement of Case. This included the site location plan and existing and proposed floor plans. Regardless of whether the site plan is to scale, it clearly shows the site of the proposed development which is edged in red. In addition, the proposed floor plans clearly show the development applied for, which in this case is simply the change of use of part of the ground floor of the appeal building to a residential dwelling. Accordingly, I find that the original plans submitted by the appellant [late] on 7 November 2019 were perfectly adequate to meet the requirements set out at paragraph W of Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the LPA did not notify the applicant of the decision (i.e. as to whether prior approval was given or refused) within the 56 day deadline. (*)
  [Note: The application was received by the LPA on Fri 08/11/2019.  It appears that the Inspector counted this date as day 1, (incorrectly) counted the bank holidays on 25/12/2019, 26/12/2019, and 01/01/2020, and therefore concluded that day 56 was Thu 02/01/2020].
  [Quote: “Accordingly, I find that the original plans submitted by the appellant [late] on 7 November 2019 were perfectly adequate to meet the requirements set out at paragraph W of Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO. Taking all of the above into account, the relevant 56 day period commenced on 8 November 2019 and expired on 2 January 2020. Consequently, I conclude that the Council failed to provide a decision within this period and prior approval is deemed to have been given under the provisions of paragraph W(11)(c) of Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO.”].

June 2020 - Code P3CM-139 (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).