This story in the Standard, about making it easier to convert unused office buildings to residential seems sensible to me.

On the face of it, there's a contradiction here, since if developers are "allowed to convert the blocks without seeking permission" as in the first paragraph, why would there be any applications flooding in in second paragraph? I suspect getting permission would still be required to ensure certain basic standards, but not for the change of use.

I find it curious that there's one expert quoted saying that "if too much retail and commercial is lost a place quickly gets a dormitory feel to it", when I'd have thought unused office space makes somewhere look even more run down. Rather than try to second guess the market, I'd have thought planners would do better to demand flexibility of future use in any applications, so that neighbourhoods don't get stuck with office space, retail space or residential space as needs change, which can't be easily changed into another use, and not look awful. It would be better to have professional architects working on how to do this, than professional planners making the process being more inflexible by insisting on current planning use classes.