16 COMMENT THE INDUSTRY ADVOCATE
Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders
DON’T SCRAP PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders (FMB), explains why permitted development rights should be reformed, rather than abolished entirely – in response to Labour’s plan to do the latter.
AS MANY AS 300,000 TO 400,000 NEW HOMES COULD BE CREATED BY MAKING USE OF EMPTY SPACES ABOVE SHOPS
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
conversions of commercial into residential build- ings without the need for planning permission, blaming these rules for the creation of ‘rabbit hutch homes’. While the FMB does do not endorse substandard quality housing being built through this mechanism, we believe scrapping it would be throwing the baby out with the bath water and would lead to fewer new homes being delivered, and derelict commercial properties remaining empty. Since 2015/16, around 46,000 homes have been built using permitted development and the Government rightly points to this as an example as a success of this policy. Permitted develop- ment has been another tool in its box to reach their target of delivering 300,000 new homes a year by 2022. It is highly unlikely that these homes would have been built as quickly going through the traditional planning route. Furthermore, it is estimated that as many as 300,000 to 400,000 new homes could be created by making use of empty spaces above shops on our high streets. The FMB’s ‘Homes on our high streets’ research report looks at a number of high streets across the country from Bishop’s Stortford to Motherwell, which have been trans- formed by converting empty retail spaces and converting them into residential spaces. In order to revitalise high streets across the country, we need to replicate these case studies on a large scale, and permitted development rights will be a critical way of stimulating these changes. The relaxing of permitted development rules
T
governing domestic properties have also made it easier for home oners to extend their homes without having to worry about the planning application process. These rules have proved popular among builders and homeowners, as they give people the opportunity to add a space to their house (eight metres for detached houses and six metres for an attached home). So, we
he Labour Party recently announced that if elected to Government it would scrap permitted development for
need to be careful to not make all permitted development synonymous with poor quality. Since Labour’s announcement we’ve had members contacting us telling us what a shame it would be if permitted development rights were to be scrapped. They have told me of old, empty and sometimes derelict commercial buildings that have been given a new lease of life and turned into much needed residential accommodation. One member informed me of a large office block he turned into social housing. This is the positive side of permitted development that we haven’t seen reported in the press. However, it is not right that in some cases permitted development is leading to ‘rabbit hutch’ flats, which are too small and have no windows. We stand with the Labour Party on strongly condemning the use of these rules as a loophole to build tiny uninhabitable homes. This is not something the FMB would ever support and our members would not be involved in such projects. However, if Labour is going to put even more pressure on the planning system by removing some permitted development rights, then it must also think carefully about how planning departments are resourced. The planning system is the second biggest barrier reported by FMB members, with 51 per cent reporting this as the major barrier to them delivering more homes. When asked to assess the biggest cause of delay and cost, the top reason is inadequate resourcing of planning departments. We would be inter- ested to hear how Labour plan to tackle this. So, it is clear that permitted development rights have led to more homes being built, derelict high streets being transformed, and homeowners adding more space to their proper- ties without the stress of a planning application. However, it is not right that these rules are used to build substandard housing. That is why we believe reform of permitted development is the right approach, rather than abolition.
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
