Appeal 6002094

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made against the Council of the London Borough of [site address] by [name]. This application is the subject of a separate

Since the application was determined, the Council have adopted the [site address] Local Plan (2025) (RLP2) and policies LP36, LP40 and LP41 of the Richmond Local Plan (2018) (RLP) have been replaced with policies 11, 21, 22 and 23. The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on this. I am required to determine the appeal against the current development plan for the area at the time of my decision. I therefore have had regard to these policies.

The main issues are: -the effect on the availability of employment space in the borough; and -whether the development makes an appropriate contribution towards affordable housing.

The appeal property is a 3-storey building comprising a retail unit to the ground floor and offices to the first and second floors. The site is located in Richmond town centre in a Key Business Area. It is proposed to change the use of the upper floors from office to residential use.

RLP2 policy 23 seeks to provide protection against the loss of existing office floorspace to create and maintain a sustainable economy. The supporting text states that the Borough Employment Land & Premises Needs Assessment identifies for the forecast period 2019-39 a shortfall of approximately 23,000 sqm of office floorspace and that Richmond town is identified as the borough’s main office market and the focus for office growth. The supporting text goes on to state that whilst the identified shortfall in the amount of office space in the borough has reduced since the Covid-19 pandemic, there is a positive demand for the Plan period and a limited pipeline of supply, and given the identified need for office floorspace a protectionist policy approach to existing office stock will be taken. The value placed by the Council on the protection of offices in this area is reflected in Article 4 directions removing specified permitted development rights allowing a change of use from office/ Class E use to residential use.

The supporting text to RLP2 policy 23 states that where a proposal involves a change of use not supported by policy, the Council will require satisfactory marketing evidence setting out why it is not suitable for continued commercial, business or service uses following a marketing exercise submitted in accordance with guidance in RLP2 Appendix 2. Appendix 2 specifies a number of marketing requirements including, in the case of office use, that marketing should be ongoing for a minimum period of 2 years at a price commensurate with the existing quality or condition of the offices based on the local office market and that the site should be marketed for the existing office use and other types of office-based uses such as flexible, start-up or co-working space and offices. Both RLP2 policy 23 and appendix 2 state that the provision of marketing will not be accepted as justification for an exception to policy.

In support of the proposal the appellant has provided a marketing report which states that the property has been marketed since November 2022 during which multiple marketing methods were employed including direct mailing and the use of property databases. It is stated that the marketing included major incentives and resulted in no significant interest. The site’s location above retail premises, lack of natural light, lack of lift access, lack of parking and the ‘grade B’ specification are cited as barriers to securing tenants.

The appellant submits that the lack of interest in the property over the marketing period indicates a lack of demand in the use of the site for offices and reference is made to a surplus of office accommodation in the borough in support of this. However, whilst it is stated that during the course of the marketing period there was a reduction in the asking rent, I have not seen any details that confirm whether the asking rental price was comparable to similar properties in the area or that the price was commensurate with the quality or condition of the offices based on the local market. This casts doubt on whether the marketing exercise provides sufficient certainty to confirm that office use is no longer viable at the property.

In light of the above it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that there is no demand in the site for office use. The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of office floorspace which would be contrary to the protectionist aims of RLP2 policy 23. Conflict also arises with those aims of policies E1 and E2 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which seek to support diverse office markets in outer London.

Whilst referenced by the Council in the reason for refusal I have not been directed to any particular conflict with RLP2 policy 22 which relates to proposals for new employment floorspace.

RLP2 policy 11 states that a contribution towards affordable housing will be expected on all housing proposals to alleviate an ongoing need for affordable housing. On sites below the threshold of 10 units, a financial contribution to the [name] will be sought as a percentage of the gross value of the development. The Council calculate that the development requires a contribution of £206,918. The application is accompanied by a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) which concluded that based on the acquisition and construction costs the proposal cannot viably contribute towards affordable housing.

The supporting text to RLP2 policy 11 states that the Council will in extraordinary circumstances and on a case-by case basis, accept viability arguments if it can be demonstrated that the site has abnormal costs that could not be foreseen. It goes on to state that the onus will be on developers to pay for any viability assessment if the proposal is not policy compliant and any cost of independent assessment.

The FVA formed part of the planning application which was not assessed by the Council as the appellant did not pay for an independent assessment. Notwithstanding the lack of payment for the Council’s independent scrutiny of the FVA, the Council have had the opportunity to review and comment on the FVA as part of the appeal and haven’t done so. The appellant’s FVA confirms that the development cannot viably provide contributions towards affordable housing and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I have been presented with no reason to disagree with this conclusion. Thus, there is no evidence before me that a contribution towards affordable housing is required in this instance.

On balance of the above, the proposal makes appropriate provision for affordable housing. I therefore find no conflict with RLP2 Policy 11, the aims of which are set out above. I also find no conflict with the Supplementary Planning Document on [name] (2014) which has similar aims.

The Council raised no objections to the proposal on grounds of the housing mix, or the development’s effect on biodiversity, the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the character and appearance of the conservation area. The dwellings would meet the minimum standards in the [name] and future occupiers would be provided with an acceptable level of natural light and amenity space. The development would provide policy-compliant levels of cycle parking and waste storage provision and would retain the ground floor retail unit and retail frontage. Nonetheless, compliance with the relevant development plan policies on these matters would be required in any case, therefore these matters weigh neutrally rather than in favour of the proposal.

The officer report states that the Council has failed to meet the housing delivery test by virtue of the recent delivery of housing being below the housing requirement. As the proposal involves the provision of housing, footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates the most important policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date and paragraph 11d) ii. of the Framework is engaged. This requires that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The development would provide 2 car-free residential units on a brownfield site with good access to facilities, services and public transport, contributing to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. The development would bring the underused upper floors of the building back into productive use and there would be short-term economic benefits associated with conversion works, and contributions made by future occupiers to the local economy in the longer-term including council tax revenue. These matters weigh in favour of the proposal. However, the benefits of housing delivery are tempered by the fact that the provision of 2 additional units would only make a small difference to housing supply.

On the other hand, I have found that the proposal would result in the loss of office floorspace, contrary to the protectionist approach to employment floorspace set out in the development plan. Chapter 6 of the Framework states that decisions should help create the conditions where businesses can invest, expand and adapt and I give significant weight to the conflict with the development plan policies in this area.

In light of the above, whilst the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the delivery of 2 dwellings, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Thus, the proposal would not constitute a sustainable form of development in terms of the Framework and does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.