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:
July 2020 - Code P3CM-142 (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” = no assessment.
- “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
- This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the building was not used as retail (etc) on 20/03/2013 or (if not in use on that date) when it was last in use. [Note: In other words, the proposed development would not comply with M.1(a)].
[Quote: “In this case, the ground floor unit is currently disused, and it has been vacant for a number of years. There is no dispute that it was in retail use between 1990 and 1997, although this use has not resumed since then. Subsequently, the unit was granted planning approvals for a change of use to a restaurant in both 2000 and 2002 [...]. In this regard, works were undertaken in order to facilitate this change of use, including internal alterations and the installation of an extraction flue (which was visible at the time of my site visit). Whilst pre-commencement conditions to permission [...] were not discharged, at the very least, some works were clearly undertaken towards implementing a restaurant use. The appellant has provided black and white photographs of the appeal unit that purportedly date to 2003 and 2011. However, both of these images are of poor quality and it is difficult to ascertain whether any changes had been made to the frontage between them. In any case, signage associated with a restaurant use could have been removed before the second photograph was taken. Accordingly, I attach little weight to these images. A statement has also been submitted that purports to be from a local resident who has lived in the area since 1999. This states that the appeal unit has never been used as a restaurant. However, as this is not a sworn affidavit I attach only limited weight to it. The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that the building benefits from the permitted development right. For the above reasons, I do not consider that sufficient evidence has been provided to establish that the unit was last used for Class A1 (shops). On the balance of probabilities, the permitted development rights under Class M therefore do not apply to the appeal building.”].
July 2020 - Code P3CM-141 (appeal dismissed):
- [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].
- 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).