Source: https://planningjungle.com/2017/02/03/part-3-class-o-of-the-gpdo-appeal-decisions-7-additional-appeal-decisions-total-202/
Timestamp: 2018-01-19 05:33:21
Document Index: 555772254

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 3']

“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 202) … | The Planning Jungle website
“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 202) …
The Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 7 additional appeal decisions relating to office-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:
January 2017 - Code P3CO-202 (appeal dismissed):
- “impacts of noise” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector indicated that it was not necessary to assess the effect of the proposed development on a European site or a European offshore marine site (i.e. with reference to “The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010”). (*)
[Quote: “The Council has also raised the issue of the site’s location relative to the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and the requirement for a financial contribution to mitigate against harm that would otherwise be caused to that area by the proposed development. No such contribution has been made. However, the Council is satisfied that this concern may be addressed by a separate process and no evidence has been given to the contrary.”].
January 2017 - Code P3CO-201 (appeal allowed):
[Quote: “Paragraph 32 of the Framework advises that development should only be refused on transport grounds if the residual cumulative impacts of the proposal are severe. Taking all of the above matters into account, I am satisfied that by virtue of the site’s accessible location, there would be adequate levels of parking either on site or with the potential for any further demand to be accommodated in nearby long stay car parks. Residents would be prevented from parking on nearby streets due to the unobtainability of inner city parking permits. Consequently, there is no firm evidence before me to suggest that the proposal would have a severe adverse impact on highway safety.”].
This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the manoeuvring of vehicles on the site (e.g. entering, exiting, and moving within the site) and concluded that this would be acceptable.
[Quote: “I note the concerns raised in the officer’s report about the parking spaces to the rear of the north wing. However, no concern has been raised by the Highway Authority about the layout of the spaces, which I consider would be awkward but not unusable, and their availability for residents of the proposed apartments could be secured by condition.”].
This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the impact of delivery and servicing vehicles and concluded that this would be acceptable.
[Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to delivery and servicing vehicles].
[Quote: “It is necessary to impose conditions relating to cycle parking, motor cycle and scooter parking, delivery arrangements, refuse collection arrangements, and parking allocation in the interests of highway safety.”].
This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed bicycle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable. (*)
[Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to bicycle parking].
[Note: Condition requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and conditions relating to vehicle parking spaces, manoeuvring area, and parking management plan (including full details of bicycle parking, motorcycle and scooter parking, arrangements for deliveries, arrangements for refuse collection, and the allocation of parking spaces)].
[Note: Condition requiring the development to begin within 3 years, and conditions relating to the security / crime / amenity / public safety aspects of vehicle and bicycle parking].
January 2017 - Code P3CO-200 (appeal dismissed):
January 2017 - Code P3CO-199 (appeal dismissed):
January 2017 - Code P3CO-198 (appeal allowed):
January 2017 - Code P3CO-197 (appeal dismissed):
January 2017 - Code P3CO-196 (appeal allowed):
This entry was posted in Part 3 Class O of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions on 3 February 2017 by Steve Speed.
← “Part 3 Class M of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 63) … DCLG publishes the “government response to consultation” with respect to starter homes regulations … →
“Part 1 of the GPDO – GENERAL Appeal Decisions” – 7 additional appeal decisions (total = 998) … 17 January 2018
“Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 244) … 8 January 2018
“Part 3 of the GPDO – Information about Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 76) … 8 January 2018
New Legislation – relating to ionising radiation, including consequential amendments to infrastructure planning regulations (01/01/2018) … 3 January 2018
NEW DOCUMENT: “Tree Preservation Regulations 2012 (Consolidated)” … 2 January 2018
NEW DOCUMENT: “Brownfield Land Register Regulations 2017 (Consolidated)” … 2 January 2018
NEW DOCUMENT: “Permission in Principle Order 2017 (Consolidated)” … 29 December 2017
New Legislation – relating to permission in principle (01/06/2018) … 27 December 2017
IMPORTANT: New Legislation – relating to fees (17/01/2018) … 24 December 2017
DCLG publishes its “Planning Update Newsletter” (December 2017) … 22 December 2017