Council wins bid to stop one flat at Maidenhead office already set for 53 more

The council has fought off a plan to add one more flat to an office block in Maidenhead already set for housing, following a Government inspector’s ruling.

Part of the three-storey Id House in Vanwall Business Park was approved for 53 flats earlier this year, after the Royal Borough lost an appeal which focused on rules converting office buildings into homes. 

But developer Mountley Ltd. reignited the fight when it lodged a bid to add one more flat on the ground floor of the office building. 

A planning inspector has now thrown out the developer’s plans at appeal and said they were in 'direct conflict' with the existing planning permissions.

Vanwall Business Park is a protected employment zone and has been at the centre of a long-running planning battle over the rules governing the conversion of office buildings into flats.

A proposed bicycle storage area next to a stairwell in Id House became the latest arena for the office conversions conflict when the developer submitted new plans in October 2024.

Mountley Ltd said, given the council had approved permission for an outdoor cycle storage area to be built, the indoor space was no longer needed and could be used for housing.

“This application would therefore create one additional flat within what is now moving towards an entirely lawful residential building,” the developer said.

The Royal Borough, the Local Planning Authority [LPA], refused this bid and warned that approval would cause loss of employment space.

Mountley Ltd then launched an appeal to the Government Planning inspector in which it argued the council’s reasoning for refusal was ‘fundamentally misplaced and unreasonable’.

“This cycle/refuse storage area is no longer required as a result of the most recent planning permission granted by the LPA for a new building to house such facilities in the large car park of the site,” the statement said.

“Given… [permission exists for the] conversion of the entirety of this building for residential use, there would be no loss of employment floorspace and indeed the LPA's first reason for refusal in light of such is fundamentally misplaced and unreasonable.”

Council planning officers countered the claim in their own statement of case on the appeal.

Existing planning permissions said that no resident could move into a revamped Id House before the cycle storage had been built, the council’s statement said.

As the site is in a protected employment zone, overriding this condition to approve the flat would cause a loss of office space contrary to planning policy, the statement added.

It concluded: “The harm identified is afforded significant weight.

“The weight attributed to all the material considerations or benefits put forward by the appellant has not been found to outweigh the harm identified.”

In a decision notice, planning Inspector G Sibley sided with the council.

“The appeal proposal would prevent compliance with these conditions with the flat proposed in the same location as the designated cycle storage area,” the inspector said.

“Consequently, the proposed development would be in direct conflict with the approved plans and associated planning conditions.”