Appeal 6006229

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on housing supply.

The proposal is to change the use of this dwelling to an office. The use has already commenced. The appellant describes that [address] is predominantly residential in character with the surrounding street scene largely defined by traditional terraced and semi-detached properties of similar scale and appearance. It is however close to the commercial area and transport facilities of [address] to the west and has commercial properties and community buildings opposite and further to the east.

The proposal would result in the loss of a dwelling. Policy LP2 (1) of the Redbridge Local Plan (2015-2030) (2018) (RLP) sets out the council’s target for new dwellings. At part 1(d), it seeks to resist the net loss of residential accommodation. The proposal would conflict with the policy and undermine the council’s approach to achieving its housing targets. It would also be at odds with Policy H1 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) which seeks to increase housing supply. The loss of a larger house such as this, would add to the concerns given the need for such properties as set out in RLP policy LP5 with regard to housing mix.

The appellant advises that the works are reversible and therefore the property could be returned to residential use in the future and as such, the change of use would not result in a permanent loss to the housing stock. However, the proposal is not for a temporary permission and there would be no mechanism for requiring the resumption of a residential use. The lack of physical change to the dwelling does not therefore offer weight in favour of the proposal. Appeal Decision: 6006229

The proposal results in new commercial floorspace. RLP policy LP14 promotes business and employment. Whilst the appellant describes that it supports flexible workspace, particularly for small and medium enterprises, this is stated in relation to policy LP14(c)(i) when intensifying and managing local business areas. There are however clearly benefits from the promotion of business uses in sustainable areas and this is supported by LP Policy E1 whereby part A seeks improvements to office space and supports new office provision, refurbishment and mixed use development. [name] goes on to set out where an increase in stock should be supported but this does not include residential locations such as this, despite the proximity to the commercial area.

The appellant makes reference to RLP policy LP1C which relates to the [address] Investment and Growth Area. The property appears to fall within the Investment and Growth Area Boundary but outside the District Centre Boundary. The policy seeks 500 new homes, 8,000sqm of new retail floorspace, 2,600sqm of new employment floorspace and 600 new jobs. It identifies that housing will generally be achieved through taller, higher density housing led mixed use schemes and the redevelopment of existing vacant, poor architectural quality and underused low grade office accommodation which are identified as mixed use opportunity sites on the [name] which also shows the areas of key retail parades. The existing housing development outside the district centre, including this property, has no designation with regard to this overarching policy. No evidence is provided to demonstrate that the proposal would positively benefit the overall redevelopment of the district centre.

The purpose of the development plan is to support sustainable development including the appropriate provision of housing, office space and other uses. Whilst the appellant advises that this is a highly sustainable location, which is undoubtedly the case, this supports both residential and office uses. However, the development plan has to manage competing land uses and, in this case, it is clear that the loss of residential accommodation should be resisted. Furthermore, its comprehensive proposals for large scale development nearby, excludes these houses from the proposed changes. There is nothing within the development plan that suggests that the need for office development is greater than that for housing or that the development plan policy that is directly relevant to this proposal should not be followed. There is also nothing before me that suggests that returning the dwelling to its lawful use would be unviable.

Whilst there would be economic benefits to the proposed use and it would be used more intensively as an office than as a dwelling; and would only result in the loss of a single dwelling, I am not satisfied that the matters that weigh in its favour are sufficient to outweigh the clear policy concerns. With regard to the development plan taken as a whole, whilst there are matters that weigh in favour of the proposal, it conflicts with RLP Policy LP2(1)(d) and the objectives of the development plan overall.

The council advise that Redbridge has delivered 39% of its annual housing target for the three years up to 2022/23 which has required the production of a Housing Delivery Test Action Plan since January 2019. This target was set at 1123 homes annually in the RLP but has since been raised to 1409 homes annually in the LP. This has resulted in a worsening 5-year housing land supply position. The 2024 housing delivery test results have not yet been provided but the council calculate Appeal Decision: 6006229 that the position has not altered. The policies in the development plan that relate to housing are therefore out of date due to the housing supply position.

Paragraph 79c of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that where delivery falls below 75% of the requirement over the previous three years, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, as set out in footnote 8 of the Framework, in addition to the requirements for an action plan and 20% buffer. Paragraph 11dii sets out that where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, 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.

With regard to the Framework, commercial development is supported as it requires that decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The site also benefits from being highly accessible with regard to sustainable transport and the provision of safe and suitable access for all users as supported by paragraph 115. Paragraph 128 encourages local planning authorities to take a positive approach to applications for alternative uses of land which are currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose in plans, where this would help to meet identified development needs.

The Framework also supports the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community. It supports proposals to use retail and employment land for homes in areas of high housing demand, in certain circumstances. The Framework seeks to promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

Whilst the Framework supports commercial development in sustainable locations, I have been provided with no evidence as to the overall need for additional office accommodation in the area. The appellant has not identified a specific need in relation to the business requirements and there is no evidence with regard to a lack of office provision locally. There is however, clear evidence of housing shortfalls.

The Framework identifies that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways. The proposal would result in benefits to economic objectives from the business use. However, as there is no evidence before me as to the need for, or availability of, office accommodation locally; or with regard to any specific business requirements of the appellant, who is already using the premises, I afford this benefit only moderate weight.

Spending by office staff within the local area would provide further economic support for businesses locally. There would be no change to the environmental objectives as no external physical changes are proposed. With regard to social objectives, the Framework relates generally to supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can Appeal Decision: 6006229 be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places. I do however afford moderate weight to the social benefits of the provision of local employment within the context of this wider residential area.

The loss of this residential property would result in harm to social objectives from the reduction in housing provision within this accessible area. Given the housing position, I afford this substantial weight as it reduces the potential to ensure that a sufficient number and range of homes are provided. The loss of residents within the community that would be likely to contribute to the social life of the area and support the community facilities and services, particularly as the dwelling is suited to family use, also weighs significantly against the proposal.

The loss of the residential use would result in an economic loss with regard to the spending of such residents. As set out above, the office workers would also support local shops and services economically. I consider that the difference between the contributions of residents and office workers to the economics of the local area is likely to be neutral within the overall balance. Although the physical appearance of the dwelling would not change, it would result in the need for a replacement dwelling which may have environmental consequences elsewhere. This has a moderate negative weight with regard to environmental objectives.

Given the clear and undisputed shortfall with regard to housing provision, I afford considerably more weight to the social benefits of retaining this existing dwelling than to the economic benefits of the provision of these offices.

Overall, in relation to paragraph 11dii, 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 adverse impacts of the loss of this dwelling, particularly the substantial social harm, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the predominately economic benefits of the office use, particularly given the lack of information with regard to the need for office provision generally, details of any potential alternative availability locally and any specific requirements of the appellant. In these circumstances, the proposal does not represent sustainable development.

[name] have had regard to the economic support within the development plan and Framework and the matters put forward by the appellant, given the housing position and my conclusions with regard to the Framework taken as a whole; and paragraph 11dii, as the proposal does not represent sustainable development, I dismiss the appeal.