“GPDO Part 3 Class M – Prior Approval Appeal Decisions” – 4 additional appeal decisions (total = 146) …

The "GPDO Part 3 Class M - Prior Approval 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:

August 2020 - Code P3CM-146 (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” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
    - “adequate natural light” = 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 acceptable.
    [Quote: “In any event, whilst an undesignated cluster of retail service units can be beneficial for a local community, particularly in terms of convenience shopping, there are only a limited range and number of retail services at [this location] and a number of vacant units. As such it is unlikely that any local resident would be able to meet their day-to-day shopping needs from the retail services to be found at this location. The four designated shopping centres have a greater scale and choice of retail services and are located nearby; I also note that there are bus stops in the immediate area of the site, including one directly outside the appeal parade. The presence of these four designated shopping centres nearby means that the loss of this vacant shop unit, or the other three units in the parade that are subject to the aforementioned appeals, would not significantly affect the provision of retail services in this part of Westminster.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering issue M.2(1)(d), concluded that the building is not located in a key shopping area.
    [Quote: “Furthermore, the absence of a formal designation for [this location]; the vacancy levels and limited range of retail services to be found there; and the presence of the four designated shopping centres nearby, means that in my view, this would not be a key shopping area as referenced in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (the GPDO).”].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not the “starting point” (or is not a “decisive” factor). [Note: In some of these appeal decisions it’s not clear whether the Inspector concludes that 1) the development plan is a material consideration but not the “starting point” or 2) the development plan is not a material consideration].
    [Quote: “The Council’s decision notice includes reference to conflicts between the proposal and policies in the development plan. A prior approval development should not be determined, expressly or otherwise, on the basis of s38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, or as though the development plan must be applied; the principle of development is established through the grant of permission by the GPDO. I have not, therefore, had determinative regard to the development plan policies referenced by the Council.”].
  • 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, and condition relating to the hours of building work].
  • 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 relating to bicycle parking, and waste and recycling storage].

August 2020 - Code P3CM-145 (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” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
    - “adequate natural light” = 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 acceptable.
    [Quote: See the quote for the above appeal decision "August 2020 - Code P3CM-146"].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering issue M.2(1)(d), concluded that the building is not located in a key shopping area.
    [Quote: See the quote for the above appeal decision "August 2020 - Code P3CM-146"].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not the “starting point” (or is not a “decisive” factor). [Note: In some of these appeal decisions it’s not clear whether the Inspector concludes that 1) the development plan is a material consideration but not the “starting point” or 2) the development plan is not a material consideration].
    [Quote: See the quote for the above appeal decision "August 2020 - Code P3CM-146"].
  • 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, and condition relating to the hours of building work].
  • 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 relating to bicycle parking, and waste and recycling storage].

August 2020 - Code P3CM-144 (appeal allowed):

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

August 2020 - Code P3CM-143 (appeal allowed):

  • [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).