Architects have come out in support of the City of London’s latest efforts to sidestep a proposed relaxation of planning laws that would allow change of use from offices to homes without planning permission.

Last week, the City released a report saying changes to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, aimed at creating thousands of homes across the country, would threaten its position as the world’s leading financial centre.

The document, by research group Quod, warned that up to 1.2 million square metres of City office space could be converted into flats over the next five years, and argues that the City should be exempt from the shake-up.

Currently, only 10,000 people live in the City, mainly in the Barbican, Golden Lane, Middlesex Street and Mansell Street estates. Offices make up 70 per cent of all City floor space.

Stuart Fraser, policy chairman at the City of London Corporation, said: ‘These proposals could lead to a dramatic reduction in the volume of office space.

'The City requires a high degree of certainty to meet the needs of current and future occupiers. Changes of use would undermine this, and the City’s ability to provide a fitting home for a range of businesses would be severely diminished.'

The profession has backed the City’s stance, with Michael Squire at Squire and Partners arguing there was a ‘case for protecting office use’ in the Square Mile. He said: ‘Clearly, a major change of floor space from office to residential would impact the City’s power to maintain itself as the pre-eminent international financial centre.’

Graham Morrison of Allies and Morrison agreed: ‘It seems contradictory for the home of the free market to protect a mono-culture. But the City of London’s wish to be exempt from this new rule is entirely justified. It would be good to have more people living in the City, but not at the expense of its unique position as a world trading centre.’

Craig Casci at Grid Architects suggested the government’s use change proposals should be abandoned altogether. ‘All cities have a legitimate claim to avoid the loss of employment space that this glib and reactionary legislation would bring.

'The patterns of activity represented by changing use need to be tested through the planning system for impact and damage. The presumption that “if you can work in it, you can live in it” has not been borne out by any research.'

However, Jack Pringle, former RIBA president and co-founder of Pringle Brandon Architects, was sceptical about the City’s motives for exemption. He said: 'Second-rate offices would be worth twice as much as residential. It’s not that the City wants to keep poor offices; they just don’t want residents.

'The City is an office factory; it’s well-named as the Corporation. The last thing they want is residents who will demand a say in how it’s run.'

According to a City of London source, the use-change issue is ‘on communities secretary Eric Pickles’ desk for a decision at the moment’