Appeal 6001048

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused for change of use from existing office building to 8 person House in [name] (HMO) and construction of a first floor front extension and associated works.

My decision is based on the scheme submitted with the appeal.

The appeal property was unoccupied at the time of my visit. I saw that the property was in need of internal repair and refurbishment. I could not access the upper floor, because the internal stairs had been removed. However, I could access the ground floor and the courtyard.

The main issue of this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the office space supply in Greenwich.

The appeal site is an urban site located along [address] in London, within Greenwich Town Centre and with good access to public transport and local services. It is also within the West Greenwich Conservation Area, partially within the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site, and within an area of high archaeological potential. Whilst the building proposed to be developed is not listed, the adjoining buildings along the [address] are a mix of statutory and locally listed buildings.

The building is located to the [site address] . It is accessed through a gated pedestrian passageway from the street, which leads to a courtyard providing access to the building.

The building is partly two-storey and partly one-storey high, finished in yellow stock brick with pitched slate roof, and partly asphalt flat roof, timber sash windows to the courtyard and sides, and modern patio doors to the back. The space is divided between two floors, and the layout is currently open plan office space.

The development seeks to convert the existing building, currently used as an office (use class E), into an eight person HMO. The development would have 5 bedrooms, and shared kitchen, living space, and bathrooms with some amenity space that would open onto the courtyard. The development would also have a first floor extension, which would be located centrally within the site and positioned below the existing ridge line. The design would match the existing building in terms of material and detailing and would open onto the courtyard.

London Plan Policy EI (offices) seeks the retention of existing viable office floorspace capacity in locations outside those areas identified in [name], a requirement which applies to the appeal site.

The Royal Greenwich Local Plan Policy EA(a) seeks to maximise the contribution to employment in [name] from sites in existing or previous employment use, which is the case for the appeal site, as it falls within the use class E.

The Policy EA(a) sets out three ways to demonstrate whether non-employment uses are allowed on vacant employment sites, of which EA(a)ii is relevant for this appeal. This policy states that non employment uses will only be permitted on vacant employment sites where it can be demonstrated that marketing on a fair price and terms for at least two years indicates there is no realistic prospect of any form of employment arising. Furthermore, Policy E(a) section 4.2.28 states that any marketing must be accessible to those searching within the local property market. Also evidence must be provided that demonstrates that the price and terms of the lease are comparative to others within the market within the two year period.

The appellant has provided a statement, prepared by a marketing agent, confirming that they have been marketing continuously for the vacant offices for over three and a half years.

The marketing strategy included circulation of marketing particulars to a large database of prospective tenants, and a “[name]” board displayed on the site. The appellant believes that their marketing efforts have been proportionate and reflects the nature and physical constraints of the site. The appellant has provided a photograph of the “[name]” board, which was an A4 notice fixed to a window in the access alleyway to the site. The “[name]” board was visible only from the alleyway and not from the [address]. No clarity has been provided on the extent of the large database used for marketing. Having regard to the above, the marketing approach was limited and fails to demonstrate that the site was marketed in a way that was accessible to all those searching within the local property market.

The marketing price for rent and associated terms have been provided, with confirmation that the price was reduced on one occasion during the marketing period. A statement has been provided claiming that the asking price was consistent with comparable office accommodation in Greenwich. However, no evidence has been provided to show how the asking price compared with similar, comparable properties in the area during the marketing period, and whether it represented a fair price.

The appellant states that feedback received from the marketing identified the building’s lack of street frontage, inflexible layout, limited parking provision and reduced demand for small office accommodation post pandemic as the principal factors contributing to the lack of interest. It is unclear if the property was marketed for any other type of commercial use under Class E, particularly for uses that are not dependant on a street frontage or parking provision. [name] acknowledge there is a lack of financial incentive to keep the building vacant, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that there is no realistic prospect of any form of employment arising from this site.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable loss of office space in Greenwich. This would be in conflict with London Plan (2021) Policies E1 and the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) Policy EA(a).

The site is located within [name] 3, which would classify the development as high risk use. Notwithstanding this, the appellant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which has been assessed by the Environment Agency (EA). EA has confirmed that it raises no objections to the development subject to conditions requiring appropriate mitigation measures.

The development proposed is located in a sensitive location within the West Greenwich Conservation Area, significant for its quality of townscape and diversity of architecture and partially within the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. It is also in close proximity to several statutory and locally listed buildings, the significance of which derives from their architectural and historic interest. The appeal scheme is for a change of use and a front extension, which forms minor works, modest in scale and height, and with materials and detail to match the existing building. For these reasons, the proposed alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not cause harm to the setting or significance of the nearby listed buildings and non-designated

The appellant has identified design improvements since the previous refusal, which were based on concerns regarding poor living environment for prospective occupiers. The accommodation proposed would now align with the Royal Borough of [name] for Houses in [name] (2019), and the Council agrees that it would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers.

Whilst the appellant has raised concerns regarding the LPA’s handling of the application, these matters are not pertinent to my consideration of the appeal.

The appellant has drawn attention to a number of local precedents for change of use within Greenwich in support of the proposal. However, the circumstances of these cases are site specific and differ materially from the appeal site, thus are not directly comparable. I must determine the appeal against relevant policies and based on its individual circumstances. Accordingly, these examples are of limited weight in my decision.

The Council have confirmed that they do not currently meet the [name] and consequently paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. Having regard to the specific circumstances of the proposal as a HMO, its limited contribution to housing supply, and the loss of office accommodation, the limited benefits of granting permission are demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts. The appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations in this case, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.