A Teddington office appeal has allowed nine flats at 65-67 Broad Street despite Richmond Council’s policies protecting employment floorspace. Inspector G Powys Jones granted full planning permission on 9 November 2026 for the conversion of vacant first- and second-floor offices in the town centre.
The case concerns approximately 770 square metres of office accommodation that had been wholly vacant since 2021. The Inspector accepted that prolonged unsuccessful marketing, updated viability evidence and the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework justified a departure from the local plan’s office-protection policies.
The Teddington office appeal also tested two financial questions that frequently decide whether small conversions proceed: how much affordable-housing contribution is justified by the viability evidence, and whether future residents should be restricted from applying for local parking permits. Both were addressed by a completed planning obligation.
Why the Teddington office appeal succeeded
Richmond upon Thames refused application PA25/1655 for the first- and second-floor conversion of Teddington House, despite the offices remaining empty for years. The borough’s 2025 Local Plan identifies the area as an important business centre and contains policies 21 and 23, which protect office space. Inspector Powys Jones did not dispute that the proposal conflicted with those policies. The Inspector instead considered whether other material considerations justified permission.
That distinction matters. A local-plan conflict is an important starting point, but it need not determine every application when sufficiently weighty material considerations point the other way. In the Teddington office appeal, the evidence of sustained vacancy and marketing was central to explaining why the normal employment-land safeguard did not prevail.
The Inspector noted that the borough’s employment assessment identified constrained opportunities for replacement offices, so the loss of 770 square metres was not trivial. Nevertheless, the offices had been partly empty from 2019 and completely vacant from 2021. By November 2026, that represented between five and seven years without the intended office activity.
Richmond questioned the marketing evidence and argued that a policy presumption against office loss remained decisive. The Inspector found that the council’s response to the marketing exercise represented an overly rigid approach
. Its own policy guidance required marketing to be assessed, which would make little sense if adequate marketing could never justify an exception.
Five years of vacancy and new national policy
The appellant supplied an updated marketing report and viability assessment at appeal stage, reflecting the time elapsed since the original application. The Council had an opportunity to examine and comment on both. The Inspector considered the marketing exercise broadly consistent with the local plan’s evidence requirements, despite some unresolved concerns, and gave its negative results significant weight.
The revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 17 August 2026, supplied a second important consideration. Policy S4 supports suitable development within settlements unless the adverse effects substantially outweigh its benefits when measured against national decision-making policies. The Inspector also referred to the council’s Housing Delivery Test position and the substantial weight that Policy HO7 gave to providing homes.
The Teddington office appeal is therefore not a decision that employment safeguards have disappeared. It is a case in which a particular office floor was shown to have remained unused for a lengthy period, while new national housing policy strengthened the case for bringing it into residential use. The Inspector found the particular building no longer warranted continued safeguarding for offices.
Three earlier appeal decisions relied on by the council did not change that conclusion. They concerned different types of employment land, weaker marketing evidence, other amenity or obligation problems, or had been determined before the August 2026 Framework. Their individual outcomes could not simply be transplanted to this proposal.
Affordable housing: £190,000 accepted
The financial dispute was more than a footnote. Both parties agreed that an off-site affordable-housing contribution was necessary under local policy, but they disagreed about the amount. The appellant offered £190,000 through a signed unilateral undertaking under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The council argued that £258,338 should be payable, having previously sought an even larger figure.
Much of the viability appraisal was agreed, including benchmark land value, finance and professional costs, gross development value and developer profit. The remaining differences concerned construction estimates, particularly the allowance for design development and construction risk, as well as items such as services, lifts and contractors’ costs.
Inspector Powys Jones favoured the appellant’s quantity-surveyor evidence overall, while finding its design development and construction risk allowance too generous. The Inspector nevertheless concluded that the executed obligation satisfactorily addressed the affordable-housing concern. The Teddington office appeal demonstrates that viable section 106 contributions depend on a reasoned examination of the actual figures rather than a flat insistence on either party’s preferred starting sum.
Our guide to section 106 agreements explains the role of legally binding planning obligations and why these are different from ordinary planning conditions. Here, the Inspector also accepted the undertaking’s restriction on residents applying for permits in the controlled parking zone, resolving the council’s separate parking objection.
Full planning permission, not Class MA
The Teddington office appeal was brought under section 78 following refusal of a full planning application. It was not an appeal against refusal of prior approval under Class MA of the General Permitted Development Order. That procedural distinction affects the tests, the scope of the planning balance and the role of the development plan.
Some qualifying buildings in Use Class E can instead follow Class MA for commercial-to-residential conversions, subject to the applicable restrictions, conditions and prior approval requirements. This decision does not establish that the same planning balance applies to such applications. It is a useful example of the evidence that may assist where full planning permission is required.
The Inspector also considered heritage context because the property lies near conservation areas and locally listed buildings. There was no heritage objection in this case. The permitted development must still comply with a schedule of conditions governing matters including external materials, water use, energy measures, cycle and refuse storage, tree protection, ecology and fire-safety details.
What other town-centre owners can learn
The practical message is to prepare the evidence before assuming that either housing policy or office-protection policy is decisive. An office owner should document how the space has been marketed, what rent or sale terms were offered, why earlier marketing has failed and what changes in demand or property condition mean for genuine reoccupation prospects.
Where a section 106 payment is disputed, the parties should identify the precise valuation inputs that differ rather than arguing only about the final contribution. The Teddington office appeal shows the importance of tested construction-cost evidence and an enforceable undertaking available to the Inspector when the appeal is determined.
Finally, the wider policy context matters. A town-centre site within a settlement may receive a different planning balance under the August 2026 national framework, but the effect depends on its circumstances and competing harms. The decision is a useful worked example of that assessment, not an automatic permission for the conversion of every vacant office.
Inspector G Powys Jones allowed appeal 6011191 on 9 November 2026 for application PA25/1655 at Teddington House, Broad Street. The decision can be read on the Planning Inspectorate appeal page. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments