DC Casebook: In depth - Loss of employment agreed on urban village flats conversion

Planning, 22 August 2008

The appeal site lay alongside the Grand Union Canal. It was in a larger area being developed in phases as part of an urban village that also contained the former headquarters of a construction company. When outline planning permission for the scheme was granted in 2004, the intention had been to retain the offices.

The appellants maintained that the offices had become surplus to requirements. Following a marketing exercise, they asserted that there was no interest from other firms in occupying the accommodation. The inspector noted that the council's masterplan for the overall urban village development showed between 820 and 1,285 jobs, with a view to creating a mix of uses that would complement the community and shopping facilities provided.

However, he was not convinced that the council had demonstrated a shortage of or demand for office space in the locality. Although he agreed that departing from the masterplan should not be done lightly, he also considered it necessary to have regard to changing economic and market circumstances. The council had departed from the original plan in the past when the need arose, he observed.

He also noted that the scheme would deliver open market and affordable housing. Changing the balance of land uses in the masterplan area would not be harmful or inconsistent with sustainable development principles, he held. Some employment would still be delivered on other sites and although the number of jobs would be lower than originally envisaged it would still create a balanced community, he concluded.

DCS Number 100-056-489

Inspector Paul Crysell; Inquiry.