The Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 3 additional appeal decisions relating to retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows: Continue reading →

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: Continue reading →

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: Continue reading →

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: Continue reading →

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: Continue reading →

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: Continue reading →

The "Part 3 Class M of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions" document provides the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for appeal decisions relating to Part 3 Class M of the GPDO (i.e. retail-(etc)-to-residential conversions).

The above document currently contains 61 appeal decisions (which were previously contained within the informal list on the "Part 3 of the GPDO - Information about Appeal Decisions" page).

For many members of the Planning Jungle website, the most important conclusions within the above document are likely to be those relating to Part 3 Class M condition M.2(1)(d) - i.e. the assessment of the impact of the development (i) "on adequate provision of services", and (ii) "on the sustainability of [a key] shopping area". To view the full version of these conclusions, please view the "M.2" topic within the above document. A short version of these conclusions is shown below:

• 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.
  [Note: For a list of 22 appeal decisions, including quotes and links to the decision notices, please view the "M.2" topic within the above document].
• 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 unacceptable.
  [Note: For a list of 3 appeal decisions, including quotes and links to the decision notices, please view the "M.2" topic within the above document].

• 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: For a list of 20 appeal decisions, including quotes and links to the decision notices, please view the "M.2" topic within the above document].
• 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.
  [Note: For a list of 12 appeal decisions, including quotes and links to the decision notices, please view the "M.2" topic within the above document].

• 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 acceptable.
  [Note: For a list of 18 appeal decisions, including quotes and links to the decision notices, please view the "M.2" topic within the above document].
• 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: For a list of 15 appeal decisions, including quotes and links to the decision notices, please view the "M.2" topic within the above document].

As might be expected, there are significant differences in how different Inspectors have assessed the above issues.

For example, in the appeal decision "May 2016 - Code P3CM-044", the Inspector concluded that a designated "neighbourhood parade" does constitute a "key shopping area" by stating the following:

"There is no definition in the GPDO of a key shopping area and the term is not used in the Council’s definition of its retail hierarchy of centres. The building forms part of a neighbourhood parade which, as was evident from my site visit, clearly plays an important role in meeting the shopping and service needs of the community that it serves. Additionally, whilst, as previously stated, the Council’s policies are not decisive in respect of the proposed development I note that the neighbourhood parade is protected by Policy DM R4 of the SPPPM. I consider the fact that the shopping parade is worthy of protection by a development plan policy provides evidence to support the view that the appeal site forms part of a key shopping area."
[Note: The above site can be viewed on Google Street View via this link].

In contrast, in the appeal decision "July 2016 - Code P3CM-049", the Inspector concluded that a designated "Local Shopping Parade" does not constitute a "key shopping area" by stating the following:

"The Council also refers to the importance of protecting this centre for local residents, suggesting that the loss of this unit would impact on the sustainability of this area. However, I have noted that this retail unit is located towards the northernmost extent of the centre, it has been demonstrated that there is a lack of demand for the unit in A1 use and there are vacant units close by. As such the loss of this unit in itself is unlikely to have a significant effect on the functioning of the centre. Furthermore, whilst this centre clearly provides for some of the day to day needs of local residents and I have acknowledged that it is identified as a Local Shopping Parade in the UDP, it does not appear to function as a key shopping area as defined by the GPDO 2015 at M.2.(1)(d)(ii)."
[Note: The above site can be viewed on Google Street View via this link].

In my opinion, for those issues for which the above types of significant differences exist, it's likely that some members (e.g. developers) will use the above document to identify and cite the more permissive appeal decisions whereas other members (e.g. local authorities) will use the above document to identify and cite the more restrictive appeal decisions.