Residential (C3) to Retail (A1). Policy H2 Question.

[Council]

Hey,

I own a 2 storey 3 bedroom dwelling house on the main shopping district. We want to change use from residential to retail unit on the ground floor living room.

UDP Policy H2 (Retention of Residential Accommodation) states that 'the Council will resist the loss of accommodation and exceptions will be considered where the alternative will provide an overriding benefit to the community, or serve a specific need and providing it does not have any adverse impact on the surrounding residential environment. This aligns with the London Plan Policy 3.14 (Existing Housing) which states the loss of housing should be resisted unless replaced.'

Furthermore, Policy H4 (Protecting and Re-Shaping the Existing Housing Stock) states, 'the council will resist the loss of housing including affordable housing unless replaced with at least equivalent floorspace' and 'will specifically seek to protect family housing unless exceptional circumstances prevail.'

Suppose if I only change the living room into a retail unit and extend the existing dwelling, such that the retail floorspace will be replaced by new residential floorspace with a rear extension and a loft dormer. There would be no net loss of residential floorspace. My question is, do you think this will be enough to overcome the H2 policy? Would re-providing the same residential floorspace be enough for the Council to accept?

I asked my planning consultant and he says that if I can provide a residential unit which achieves the space standards of a 3 bedroom house, then he can support the argument that an equivalent dwelling has been retained on the site.

I will be grateful for your opinion.

Thanks.

 

[LukeB123]

Can you get 2 flats above what would be the new retail shop? You could utilise your permitted development rights for that; including that in your application to strengthen your argument.

Sounds like they are generic policies to stop lots of housing going. If it's in a shopping district, use that as your exceptional circumstance, to provide a essential service to the area?

Unfortunately unless you can match the policy word for word then you are going to have to get the application in to get a decision - the policies are written as a catch all so the council can apply them as and where they see fit.

 

[Nakajo]

Wow. Resi to Retail. I haven't heard that in years. If you live in some remote place that still has council 'duty planning officers', go and see them. They'll tell you what's feasible - my guess is that they'd support such an ambition, despite the loss of accommodation.

 

[^woody^]

Do what your planning advisor says

 

[Council]

Can you get 2 flats above what would be the new retail shop? You could utilise your permitted development rights for that; including that in your application to strengthen your argument.

Sounds like they are generic policies to stop lots of housing going. If it's in a shopping district, use that as your exceptional circumstance, to provide a essential service to the area?

Unfortunately unless you can match the policy word for word then you are going to have to get the application in to get a decision - the policies are written as a catch all so the council can apply them as and where they see fit.

Don't think the Council of my borough allow seperate flats since they want to keep the housing stock intact for large families. I was thinking to make a clothing shop, but I know that it doesn't provide an 'overriding benefit to the community.'

So, what if i made it into a Book shop that provides educational books? There are no book shops on the district. Would that be an 'overriding benefit to community'? It would certainly add diversity to the shopping district.

Yes i could use the shopping district as an exceptional circumstance. That is a good point.

Wow. Resi to Retail. I haven't heard that in years. If you live in some remote place that still has council 'duty planning officers', go and see them. They'll tell you what's feasible - my guess is that they'd support such an ambition, despite the loss of accommodation.

I'm in London. The borough of my area are charging approximately £3200 for pre-planning advice from the planning officers. I think it's absurd because I have to pay Architect and Planning Consultant fees, which could total up to £10,000 or maybe slightly more. I have done a search on the council website and noticed a lot of applications rejected in the past due to 'loss of accommodation'. But none of the applicants have provided a solution to replace loss of floorspace in the past. I could be the first applicant to do that. It's a risk/reward.

Do what your planning advisor says

I was told about it during the initial consultation. I mean I have to pay his fees of £3000 for the preparation of planning statement, submission and monitoring of planning application.

Before going ahead, I wonder if my planning consultant is right in saying that 'replacement of floorspace will be key.' My biggest concern is that the Council will refuse planning permission due to the property no longer looking like an actual dwelling house. As you know, there is a huge demand for houses in London.


One of the architects emailed me that he believes the 'Council are trying to resist houses from being converted due to the lack of houses'. And that 'supplying flats of the same floor area may not be sufficient to overcome the policy of the Council.'

The architects opinion contradicts what my planning consultant is advising.

 

[LukeB123]

2 flats above a shop is permitted development and does not require consent.. Unless your in an area with specific restrictions. The overriding benefit to the community is a bit rubbish to be fair. It doesn't really matter if your feeding the 5,000, you're creating a retail shop (A1) it will have to be assessed against that criteria. You could maybe sway a committee with educational books etc but I can't see the planners being too interested.

If the money is an issue (depending on timescales) just put a basic application in yourself, see what the reasons for refusal are (if it does get refused) and work on them

 

[^woody^]

One of the architects emailed me that he believes the 'Council are trying to resist houses from being converted due to the lack of houses'. And that 'supplying flats of the same floor area may not be sufficient to overcome the policy of the Council.'

The policy is key, but there are ways to interpret it.

There is a national housing shortage of all types, but local areas may be experiencing shortage of particular types of property. Or it may be that flats may not be appropriate in an area of otherwise large family housing.

The Architect may have a point, and the planning consultant needs to consider this point if he has not done so already.

Pre-planning advice may not be useful in this instance. They wont give you any definitive or binding opinion, and in any case this situation will require the [subjective] consideration which will only come via a full planning application.

Your agent should look at the local policy, and prepare a reasoned argument as to how the application will meet the local requirements. This will assist any subsequent appeal if need be

 

[Council]

LukeB and woody, Thank you very much for the opinions and suggestions.

Good to know I don't need pre-planning advice from the Council. Woody you are right, there are different ways to interpret it. That's why the Architect looked at the policy differently . I'll have another meeting with my planning consultant before going ahead, and see if there is a way to get around this policy. I'll ask him to take a look at local policy. He would certainly need to present good arguments.

Cheers.