50 property
Conservatives ‘Home Office’ – Good news for developers, but can the councils cope?
Residential developers were given some welcome news by the housing and planning minister, Brandon Lewis in October when he confirmed permanent changes to the Permitted Development Rights (PDR) rules. These were first introduced in May 2013 in a bid to give housing numbers a quick boost, and which were originally due to expire in May 2016, but are now to become permanent, writes Will Morris of Haslams
The new legislation also goes beyond existing conversion rights, allowing developers in many cases to raze office buildings and change the use of light industrial buildings and launderettes to create new homes, subject only to prior approval from the local planning authority, but importantly without requiring a formal planning permission. Limitations will apply to the proposed rights for new-build replacements, with further details promised in due course.
what has often been a rather monopolised housing offer from the larger developers.
Using PDR to deliver much needed housing stock from obsolete office blocks, and now other uses has been seen by many as a good opportunity to breathe new life into what is often a utilitarian urban area. This has been particularly evident in Reading where tired office blocks such as Garrard House and 308- 314 King’s Road are delivering new apartments while simultaneously improving the tone of the area.
explaining that PDR will mean “local communities will have even less input over how their neighbourhoods are developed” as local planning authorities (LPAs) will have little say in the design and quality of many new schemes.
The already overstretched and understaffed LPAs will also feel aggrieved by the news, as they are required to deal with the prior approval process within a tight timeframe for far smaller fees than those paid when dealing with full planning applications.
Furthermore, at present developments approved under PDR are not required to make contributions towards infrastructure, affordable/starter homes, nor the Community Infrastructure Levy. However, it is currently not clear whether this will change under the new announcement. This is putting even more pressure on LPAs who are struggling to cope, particularly with the demand for affordable housing where demand has been outstripping supply for a number of years.
So what positives will the news bring to the Thames Valley?
At Haslams we have been advising clients on the new regime, especially in relation to viability and value, and have seen at first hand that for developers the greater certainty of gaining approval, married with the prior approval process, has huge attraction to them. The new regime delivers a consent which is far quicker and cheaper than having to gain full planning permission. This creates a low-risk environment.
Since PDR was introduced we have seen new, smaller developers and property owners enter the market, thus allowing greater diversity in
www.businessmag.co.uk What are the negatives?
According to the British Council of Offices, over 6 million sq ft of office space was converted to residential use in 2014. However, many argue that the unregulated nature of PDR is unleashing a flood of poor quality housing into the market, particularly at a time when there is meant to be a supposed shift towards providing cleaner, greener buildings within the urban environment.
Kate Henderson, chief executive of the Town and Country Planning Association also argues that PDR conflicts with the Government’s commitment to localism,
THE BUSINESS MAGAZINE – THAMES VALLEY – DECEMBER 15/JANUARY 16
Looking to the future, it remains to be seen whether the Government will reign in PDR in order to provide some much needed support to councils' needs. But for the time being developers should make hay while the sun shines.
Details: Will Morris 0118-9211518
www.haslams.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56