The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 1 additional appeal decision relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:
September 2020 - Code P3CM-147 (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.
- “adequate natural light” = no assessment.
- This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) concluded that the resulting site would not constitute “a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses)”.
[Quote: “The Council have concluded that a change of use from a betting office to a mixed A1/C3 use is not permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the GPDO. The appellant contends that the Council have misinterpreted their intention, which seeks to change the use of only part of the building. They argue that the application relates solely to the change of use of the rearward part of the building from a betting office to a residential use. They explain that the remainder of the ground floor of the building will be retained either in its current use as a betting office or converted to an alternative use such as Class A1 retail use, which they argue would be permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class E of the GPDO. Whilst I recognise that it may have been the appellant’s intention to apply for prior approval for a change of use concerning only the rearward part of the building, this is not what is set out within the description of development, as stated on the application form. The description of development on the application form explicitly refers to a ‘mixed use’ and states ‘the proposal is for a change of use from Betting Offices to a mixed use, with a shop at the front (class A1 use) and one 2-bedroom flat to the rear (class C3 use)’. [...] Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the GPDO, among other things, permits a change of use of a building from a use as a betting office to a use falling within Class C3, subject to the prior approval matters for a permitted change of use. It does not permit a change of use of a building from a betting office to a mixed use comprising of an A1 and C3 use.”].
- This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector (specifically) concluded that it is possible to submit an application for prior approval relating to only part of a building.
[Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
[Quote: “I recognise that it is possible to change the use of ‘part of the building’ as permitted development. This is because, from Article 2(1) of the GPDO, the meaning of ‘building’ includes ‘part of a building’ for Class M of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO. However, the application before me sought prior approval for a change of use of the entire ground floor of the existing building from a betting office to a mixed A1/C3 use. As such, this is not a determinative point in this appeal.”].
- 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).