Inspector rejects south London office-to-home conversion

Sutton Council had failed to determine the application for alterations, extensions and a change of use of the empty 12 storey office building into 160 flats within the prescribed period. The Planning Inspector said in his report (7-page / 127KB) that the Council indicated it would have refused the application because it did not propose to provide any affordable housing.

The Inspector acknowledged that the scheme would provide the funds necessary to repair and refurbish the "poor appearance" of the building which he said had a "depressive effect on its environs and on the entry into the town centre". He also said it would make use of a redundant property and assist the objective in the National Planning Policy Framework to boost the supply of housing in a sustainable location.

However, the Inspector said that the developer's assertion that the scheme would not be capable of providing affordable housing because this would make the scheme uneconomic had not been proved. "There is an acknowledged need for affordable housing, and the evidence does not indicate that a limited provision on this site would render the scheme uneconomic," he said.

He concluded that there were "adequate grounds to consider that the development should contribute to the supply of affordable housing in the light of planning policy and the need to maintain financial viability".

The Inspector noted that the developer had made an application to the Council for prior approval of the change of use under the recently introduced permitted development rights which allows for offices to be converted into homes without the need for planning permission.

He said that the developer considered this to be a practical alternative that could take place without obligations to contribute to the supply of affordable housing, or to the infrastructure costs of the development.

However, he said that the economic implications of such an alternative had not been explored. "It is not possible to be certain that it would represent a physically and financially viable proposition, nor that it would be more attractive to a developer than the appeal scheme with the inclusion of an element of affordable housing and infrastructure payments. As such, there is no clear evidence that it represents a realistic fallback provision," he said.