Council loses appeal against company looking to turn office into 91 flats

A battle by the council to try to prevent office space in Maidenhead from being turned into flats has been lost.

Developer Bellway Homes wants to demolish Mattel House – the former UK headquarters of toy company Mattel – on Vanwall Road’s business park and build 91 flats in its place.

Windsor and Maidenhead council was minded to refuse this – but ‘fail[ed] to give notice of a decision’ within the time limit, giving the developer automatic recourse to appeal.

It got to make its case directly to the Planning Inspectorate, with the Royal Borough on the defensive.

In hearings taking place last month, the council made the case that it needed to protect office space.

By contrast, Bellway’s representatives argued that the Borough was not going to meet its housing targets without more homes being built, hence the need for these flats.

The council has now lost that fight – and planning permission will be granted to Bellway to get rid of Mattel House and build its flats.

In addition, the Royal Borough will need to pay some costs to the appellant for the appeal proceedings.

The killer blow to the council’s case was the matter of housing numbers.

Inspector C Masters wrote that there was ‘no dispute’ that the council ‘cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing.’

A local plan includes outlining how many homes can be delivered in the next five years, from the date the plan is adopted.

An interim update from the council showed the supply is short by 348 – only meeting the Borough’s needs for the next 4.69 years.

This creates a ‘tilted balance’ whereby the footing of the council and developers are effectively reversed, giving applicants the upper hand in an appeal like this.

Both parties accepted that this ‘tiled balance’ had come into play.

This means planning permission will be granted unless any adverse impacts ‘would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.’

C Masters said they could identify no such adverse impacts – and thus had to conclude that the appellant’s case outweighs conflicts with other policies.

A major one is that the proposals fly in the face of a ‘nil loss of employment floorspace’ principle.

Vanwall Business Park is a ‘protected employment site.’ Even though the loss of employment space here is ‘in conflict’ with the policy, the proposal meets ‘exceptional case’ tests.

The titled balance means that the council’s arguments had to be iron-clad to turn the tide. But its concerns over the height, scale and density of the proposed building fell flat.

Even though the new building would be two metres taller than the tallest in the business park, this ‘would not lead to a significant contrast with neighbouring properties,’ C Masters wrote.

The inspector disagreed that the building would be ‘harmful to the character of the area.’

“There is no merit in the suggestion that this building would in any way dominate this particular part of the overall street scene,” they wrote.

Also contrary to council concerns, the inspector was ‘satisfied’ that the building would provide ‘a satisfactory standard’ of housing.

To see all planning and appeal documents, enter reference 22/01391/FULL into the council’s planning portal.