Converting offices into flats: More housing, yes, but what about jobs?

In the article above I referred to the conversion of the Blackhorse building in Cockfosters into flats. This is something I was aware of but had never looked into in any detail. Then last night Cllr Jason Charalambous (Cockfosters ward) reported that the Enfield planning committee had approved the developers's proposals. He was the sole member to vote against them. See https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1089550624506812&id=634899569971922.

As I say, I hadn't paid much attention to this. But today, looking at the proposals, which can be found at http://www.cockfosters-green.co.uk/plans, I have to say that I agree with Cllr Charalambous' opinion that the proposals are "excessive". I hadn't realised that a massive new block would be built in front of the existing building, hiding its best feature, the rather gracious curve, as viewed from the Cockfosters Road side. I can't see how building on the green space in front of the nice curved building can conceivably be categorised as "green" - but this is exactly what the developers claim.

Just contrast the existing view with the future view:







Jason Charalambous is of the view that the planning committee in this case and in others ignores legitimate concerns in the interests of expediency and thus unsuitable construction goes ahead. This may well be so, but a couple of weeks ago I came across an article in the Guardian dating from 2014 which explained why developers have the upper hand over local authority planning committees and are able to frustrate councils' wishes.

The article, The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities is at https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities.

The author, Oliver Wainright, sets out the problem thus:

He goes on to say "In practice, since council budgets have been so viciously slashed, Section 106 has become a primary means of funding essential public services, from social housing to public parks, health centres to highways, schools to play areas. The bigger the scheme, the fatter the bounty, leading to a situation not far from legalised bribery – or extortion, depending on which side of the bargain you are on."

While the government claims to be promoting "localism", which involves listening to local communities when making planning decisions, its pauperisation of local authorities and its relaxation of many planning laws are doing the exact opposite - giving the power to big developers.

Whether or not these factors came into play when Enfield approved "Cockfosters Green" or, for that matter, the inappropriate housebuilding along Bowes Road, I can't say. But I do think we have to spare a little sympathy for hard pressed councils.

The Conservation Advisory Group considered this development on two occasions, most recently on 10 November.

On the last time we considered it, the outcome is in summary:
- No objection with respect to the listed underground station (unanimous)
- Objection to the additional floor on Blackhorse Tower (unanimous)
- Objection to the seven storey blocks B & C (majority decision).

On this this last issue there was an argument advanced that the seven storey addition would take the pressure off the green belt, provide substantial social accommodation and was a price worth paying.

The majority of members considered that the proposed seven storey blocks were far too large and blocked the view, from Cockfosters Road, of the pleasing curves of Blackhorse Tower. No attempt has been made by the applicant to respect the design of Blackhorse Tower or the predominately ground and two storey shopping areas, and, domestic properties; all of which are in the immediate vicinity. The scale of the development is likely to affect the whole setting of Cockfosters.

Members noted that none of the photomontages of the proposed blocks showed lift motor rooms, aerials, plant housings and the like; all of which would disfigure the sky line.

The minutes of the Planning Committee on 21 Feb haven’t been published yet so far as I can see, but the main paper they took is at
http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3375C0E075B74B3ACD2294D68B1DB98A/pdf/16_04133_FUL-Committee_Report-1752588.pdf

What I don’t see in that are the CAG objections, but they may have been raised orally during the meeting. I suspect however, that this would have gone ahead anyway given the officers’ recommendation to approve the application.

Personally I think the outcome is an eyesore.

The decision a few years ago by the coalition government to allow a simplified planning process to speed up the conversion of old office buildings into residential was much needed and long overdue.

Of course any conversion needs to be of a building that is suitable for the purpose, of a good standard and provide decent living accommodation, but it is far more cost effective than demolishing and rebuilding.

There was simply a huge oversupply of office space, which was becoming increasingly run down. Now it is being rebalanced. It is important to avoid the pendulum swinging the other way, as so often happens.

Although I have not looked at this in detail, Colin seems right that the Cockfosters site amounts to overdevelopment, with substantial new buildings concealing the original, the loss of open space and the building line being brought forward almost to the highway. It all looks very intrusive.

As far as jobs go, the construction work provides much employment and in answer to Basil’s question, why can’t you give jobs to people in those offices? An efficient economy works the other way round. You need to build offices and factories to put in machines and workers whose labour is in demand, not find workers to fill empty offices, then make up jobs for them

The decision of the Coalition Government to relax planning rules on converting offices to residential was stupid and misguided. They have compounded this recently to allow offices to be demolished and rebuilt as flats without planning consent, and allow other unsuitable buildings to be converted to inappropriate uses as well (an out of centre warehouse conversion to a school in Rotherham a year or so ago was particularly risible in my view). There are plenty of places in the country where this has caused an imbalance between jobs and residents, particularly in places like Croydon, but also in other parts of the country. Article 4 directions and exemptions have eased the pressure, but a blanket application of a permitted development was a crude response to the problem of of underused office space and long term I'd expect our communities to suffer more than they benefit.

I have to concede that there is a legitimate debate about when it is appropriate to convert offices into flats, but I think that it should be up to democratically elected councils to decide, not "the market" in the form of developers going for the easiest buck.

However, I'm sure we can all agree that the massive new blocks in front of Blackhorse House will be a blot on the least spoilt town centre in the borough.



Not that the "architectural director" for the development sees it this way. The Enfield Independent reproduces his comments , which I can only classify as absolute drivel:

Capitol House is a horrendous dump. Truly awful building with no redeeming features and a blight on the streetscape - classic 1960s ex-public sector tat.

Some people are just desperate to screw the younger generation and refuse to allow young people places to live.

Are the offices full to the brim? I doubt it. Suspect rental growth has been pretty muted. Much better to convert to a more attractive looking building providing something that IS desperately needed - housing. Housing that will be occupied by new people in the community, bringing in new investment and new spending - much greater benefit to local businesses that some shoddy old bargain basement offices.

20th century NIMBYism has morphed into 21st century BANANAism - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.