A house builder has lost its fight to bulldoze South London offices for flats after an inspector said some of the planned homes were too small. Bhpd Limited wanted to demolish buildings surrounding a courtyard in Brixton Hill and build 24 flats on the site.

Lambeth Council officials rejected the plans in September 2022 over fears views from the new homes would be "oppressively enclosed" and because of the loss of office space. The developer, now calling itself Platinum Land Limited, appealed the council's decision with the Planning Inspectorate – which rules on planning disputes. 

But the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the housebuilder's appeal, saying it was unconvinced that two of the proposed flats would meet the government's minimum size rules for planning. It also raised concerns about the impact of the office conversion on transport around Brixton Hill. 

An appeal decision dated January 31 reads: "I am not satisfied that Flat 2 would meet both the minimum width and minimum floorspace requirements contained in the NDSS [a space guide used to make decisions on planning applications by councils].

CGI of rejected Brixton Hill flats. Credit: Lambeth Council planning documents

"For proposed Flat 7 the appellant states that part of the bedroom would be a 1.8 sqm storage cupboard. However, this is not annotated on the submitted drawings, unlike storage or wardrobe space in other proposed flats. It is not, therefore, clear from the evidence that Flat 7 would contain the 1 sqm of built-in storage required by the NDSS."

The decision notice goes on to raise concerns that indoor bicycle storage included in the planned development would be unappealing to residents and could "discourage them from cycling."

It adds: "Bicycles are inherently outdoor vehicles and can collect dirt and water on their wheels and frames through use. Moving a wet or dirty bicycle a considerable distance through a home and storing it in an enclosed space, as would be the case here, is unlikely to be attractive to residents." 

Of the 24 planned flats, eight would have been one-bedrooms and eight would have been two-bedrooms. There would have also been four three-bedroom flats and four, four-bedroom townhouses built on the site. None of the houses would have been affordable (costing no more than 80 per cent of local market rents) or available at the cheapest social rents.

In a document created to support Bhpd Limited's original planning application to Lambeth Council, the development was described as providing a "good mix of" flat sizes. The document added that an assessment carried out by consultants had found the development couldn't provide affordable housing if it were to make financial sense. 

Bhpd Limited has been contacted for comment on the Planning Inspectorate's appeal decision through its agent for the application.