Inspector Turns Down Battle Office Conversion For Second Time

Plans to convert a Battle office space back into a residential property have been turned down at appeal for a second time.

In a decision notice published on Friday (June 20), a planning inspector has dismissed an appeal connected with proposals to convert the upper floors of 72a High Street — an office space above Battle’s Co-op supermarket — into a three-bedroom maisonette.

According to planning documents, the applicant behind the scheme, Mark Law of M&P Residential Enterprises LLP, had bought the Grade II listed property in 2011 and later converted it from a home into an office space for an accountancy practice he had owned at the time.

The accountancy practice, which Mr Law sold in 2019, relocated to different premises in 2022, with the appeal property having been vacant since then.

Mr Law has made two previous attempts to convert the property back into residential use, both of which were refused by Rother District Council due to concerns around the loss of the office space.

One of these previous refusals was taken to appeal, but the inspector found in favour of the council’s decision.

In May last year, Rother District Council refused the application behind the current appeal on similar grounds. At the time, a Rother planning spokesman said:

“A marketing campaign that offers the premises for sale has not been carried out for a sustained period of time to demonstrate a lack of demand for the existing use of the property.

“The information submitted therefore fails to demonstrate a robust marketing campaign has been undertaken for a period of at least 18 months in relation to the office use, or in relation to considering alternative commercial/community facilities.”

Within a statement submitted as part of the application, a spokesman for Mr Law accepted the property had not been marketed for sale prior to the council making its decision.

However, the spokesman also argued there were other material considerations weighing in favour of the conversion.

These included the fact the property had been in residential use until 2011 and had only been converted as a result of the applicant’s own need for office space, the spokesman said.

The spokesman went on to say that the property was considered to be unsuitable for a modern office use.

The statement cited how the company which bought Mr Law’s former firm had “moved at the earliest opportunity”, as they had “found the premises very challenging for office use due to its age and layout with no disabled access.”

The application also provided some supporting evidence for this opinion in the form of market appraisals from the specialist estate agent Sussex Commercial (then known as Hunt Commercial).

Within these appraisals, the estate agent sets out an opinion that there is an “oversupply” of office space within Battle and it would not be “likely to achieve a letting of this accommodation”.

The estate agent also points to issues with the building’s access and says there is a “substantial choice of superior stock on the market”.

The property has been put up for sale since the latest application was turned down by Rother District Council. This process had been running for at least nine months at the time of the appeal decision.

The planning inspector highlighted several concerns about this process, however.

In their decision notice, the planning inspector said:

“The appellant commenced marketing the appeal property after the planning application was determined.

"The appellant confirms that there have been no serious expressions of interest within a nine month period.

“However, there is limited information before me on any enquiries or viewings or the reasons why any prospective tenants may not have been interested.

“Nevertheless, the appeal property has not been subject to a comprehensive and sustained marketing campaign for the required time period [of 18 months].

"Based on the evidence before me, it does not appear that the appeal property has been marketed for sale or for alternative commercial or community uses which may appeal to a wider market.

"There is also limited information on the nature of the marketing campaign.

“I noted on my site visit that no estate agent’s marketing boards were present on the appeal property.

"Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me that the rental price is competitive in the current market.

“Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that the appellant has made appropriate endeavours to market the appeal property for office, commercial or community use, in line with [local planning policies].”

The inspector also noted how the proposal had been supported by Battle Town Council and saw no objections from local residents, but said this had no impact on their decision.

Ultimately, the inspector said there was “insufficient information” to demonstrate a lack of demand for an office, commercial or a community use in the building.

The inspector said this meant the loss of employment space would be “unjustified” and so would not be supported by planning policy.

In light of this, the inspector dismissed the appeal after judging the downsides of the scheme to outweigh the benefits of an additional home.

For further information see application reference RR/2024/400/P on the Rother District Council planning portal.