Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Appeal: 96 Bramley Close, Walthamstow E17 6EG

Date: 22nd February 2008
LBWFref: 2007/1885
LBWF Contact: Mrs B Danahar, direct line: 020 8496 6732
Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to advise you that on the 15th February 2008, Coco Developments Ltd lodged an appeal with the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of the above site. The appeal is against the refusal of the council to grant planning permission for conversion of office building into four self-contained flats (4x1-bed).

The Council refused permission for the following reasons:-

1. The proposals would be contrary to policies SP7 and INB8 of the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006) insofar as it would result in the loss of employment (B1 office) floorspace. Moreover, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is no realistic prospect of the property being used for office purposes in the forseeable future.
2. The proposal would result in an increase in demand and competition for limited on-street parking in a heavily parked and congested area. This would result in conditions that would be detrimental to the amenities of residential occupiers in the vicinity of the application site, contrary to policies BHE1, BHE3, BHE4 and TSP17 of the Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006).
3. The proposed development would result in loss of amenity for occupiers of residential properties on Higham Hill Road due to overlooking of rear gardens, contrary to policies BHE3 of the adopted Walthamstow Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006).

The grounds of appeal are attached.

The appeal is being dealt with by written representation procedure. The Secretary of State has asked the Council to notify interested persons who were required to be consulted and those who made representations at the application stage of the appeal.

The comments made on the original application will be forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate and the apellant, and will be taken into account by the inspector when deciding the appeal.

If you wish to submit any further representations, you should write to The Planning Inspectorate, 3/19 Eagle, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN. Please send 3 copies quoting appeal reference APP/U5930/A/08/2065623/NWF Any comments you make will be made known to the appellant and the Council.

The Planning Inspectorate will not acknowledge your letter unless you specifically ask them to do so. They will, however, ensure that your letter is passed on to the Inspector dealing with the appeal. Please ensure that the planning Inspectorate receives any representations, which you wish to make on this appeal, by 28th March 2008 otherwise there is a risk that your representations will not be considered.

The Planning Inspectorate will send a copy of the decision letter to you provided you specifically ask for one.

If you require any further information or clarifiacation of this matter, please telephone the above number. A booklet 'Guide to taking part in planning appeals' is available upon request from the above telephone number.

Yours faithfully
Blaithin Butler
Head of Development Management

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

This appeal has been submitted against the decision of the London Borough of Waltham Forest to refuse planning permission for the conversion of the existing office building into four self-contained flats.

Policy INB8 of the adopted Waltham Forest Unitary Development Plan (2006) states that the re-use or redevelopment of office buildings outside the strategic, Borough and Local Employment Areas will be permitted where there is no realistic prospect of the property being re-used for offices in the forseeable future. Preference will be given to re-use or redevelopment for commercial or residential uses subject to there being no conflict with other policies of the Plan. The reasoned justification to Policy INB8 requires redundant office premises to be marketed for a period of six months.

The appellants will demonstrate that the premises has been actively marketed for continued employment use since July 2006 through local agents and that there has been no interest forthcoming. Marketing enquiries have been logged, which demonstrate that the premises have been marketed at a relistic price. To this end, sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is no realistic prospect of the premises continuing to be use for office purposes and hence residential use should be permitted consistent with the spirit of policy INB8.

The appellants commissioned an on-street car parking survey to demonstrate that the net additional demand for on-street parking between the existing and the proposed use could be accomodated without resulting in any further stress on the prevailing situation. Hence, there would be no consequential impact on highway and pedestrian safety or on residential amenity.

The proposed development involves the conversion of an existing commercial building where the existing fenestrated elevations are not going to be materially altered through the addition of further windows. Hence, the existing relationship of the building to the surrounding properties is going to be maintained albeit that the use would change from offices to residential. However, the change in the use of the premises would not increase or decrease the extent of the physical relationship with the surrounding properties in terms of privacy, overlooking and outlook. The status quo would be maintained in this regard. In fact, a residential use would be much more conducive to the area than a commercial use in all respects.

In conclusion, I would submit that the appeal proposal is in accordance with the Council's development plan policies and in the absence of any demonstrable harm I would invite the inspector to overturn the Council's decision by allowing the appeal.

|BACK TO HOME PAGE|