You would not get planning permission to convert a house into an office. It would be against all the principles of good planning. It would be losing a residential unit and it would set a precedent.
I don't see why. Let's put aside the question of whether principles are used in our planning at all. I don't see why converting a house into an office is any worse than building hundreds of thousands of square feed of office space in clumps beside motorways and making workers drive accross the city to get to them.
Surely good planning would involve mixing commercial and residential seamlessly so that during the day areas are busy with workers and at night those same people can socialise.
Instead we get the population waking up every morning, travelling often by car to the other side of the city, or to other counties, leaving the residential areas all but deserted during the day, then switching off the lights in their offices in the evening, driving back home leaving the commercial areas deserted until the next morning.
I didn't realise that there was a policy of not allowing houses to be converted into business properties. But if there is it's a policy I'd disagree with.
If my business grew substantially, I'd certainly like to be able to buy a house near where I live and convert it into a business premises.
Before we start worrying about people buying houses and turning them into offices we should worry about thousands of acres of houses and appartments being build with no playgrounds, schools, playing fields, pubs, office space etc.
I'm at a loss to see any evidence of coherant planning which promotes communities living and working in the same place with local access to essential services and facilities.
Instead we are spending billions on getting them accross the city faster. Wouldn't it be better to focus on reducing the need for commuting, rather than attempting to increase the speed at which we commute?
-Rd