40 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENTS: CONVERTING URBAN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL
How well do you believe offi ces, retail, hotel and industrial structures are suited for conversion to residential? Very well suited Moderately well suited Not very well suited Don’t know
about the quality of such conversions, with reports criticising poor design standards, a lack of amenity space, and inadequate natural light. A 2020 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government report – based on research undertaken by University College London and the University of Liverpool found that overcrowding was a persistent issue in offi ce-to- residential conversions, with only 22.1% of homes meeting the Nationally Described Space Standards. By comparison, homes built following a full planning application saw a still not brilliant, but considerably better – 73.4% meeting the standards. Last year the Local Government Association (LGA) complained that just under 24,000 potential affordable homes had been “lost” in PD conversions. When full planning permission is not required, local authorities are unable to oblige developers to allocate a percentage of units to affordable housing. Confl ict is also reported to have arisen for multiple reasons, including the limited opportunities for community input when bypassing standard planning procedures and due to the nature of mixing residents in so closely with businesses. It’s evident there are a number of pros and cons to be weighed up when considering utilising PD and Class MA. According to the LA, as of December 04 a total of 5,6 new homes
CHALLENGES U
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
had been created through the conversion of offi ces under PD rights, showing that there are developers viewing it as a viable route to development. But there are also many developers unsure as to its suitability and viability from both a business and practical perspective. Our survey takes a more in-depth look into how many developers are choosing or not choosing to utilise PD and why, the challenges it presents and how they can overcome them.
Our research revealed that while the majority of respondents were not currently planning a commercial to residential project, of the 39% that were either underway or starting one, all said they were using ‘permitted development’ (rather than options including ‘Article 4’, ‘other’, or ‘none’). This is reassuring that while only a minority of our surveyed developers are pursuing these conversion projects, those that are, are utilising the Class MA permitted development route.
Further to this, we asked how many residential units the project contained, and all of our respondents said their projects were over 50 units, demonstrating that PD can be a viable route to providing a signifi cant number of housing units, and could therefore potentially make a major contribution to the 1.5 million homes Labour has promised by mid-2029.
nfortunately, one of the biggest challenges facing supporters of PD was highlighted immediately in our survey – uptake. We asked respondents what their current status regarding work on permitted development is, with a signifi cant 61% answering they are currently ‘not planning’ one. Despite the signifi cant number of new homes delivered via PD, our results suggest uptake is not as high as the aspirations from the Government and others to revitalise towns. Of our cohort, 30% reported that they are looking to begin a project, and only 9% said they currently have a project underway.
There are indisputably signifi cant obstacles blocking many developers from considering pursuing a project under PD. The possible reasons for the poor uptake are varied and something which the remainder of our survey aimed to fi nd out. A potentially major obstacle is the somewhat negative reputation PD projects have attained due to the reported poor quality of completed projects, whether that be inadequate natural light provision, or squeezing too many dwellings into the space offered. We asked if developers believe that such reports have damaged the reputation of PDs, to which 73%
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
