PERMITTED DEVELOPMENTS: CONVERTING URBAN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL 41
responded ‘yes.’ A further 18% selected ‘don’t know’, and only 9% chose ‘no’.
From this it can be reasonably assumed that many developers are simply put off even attempting a PD for fear of the repercussions or potential lack of interest from buyers due to a preconceived assumption that they won’t be up to standard. The fastest way to change public perception would be for a number of reputable developers to complete PDs to a high standard and simply prove that good quality is consistently achievable – but with that negative reputation breeding caution among developers, it could be a hard reputation to shake. There are other, more practical challenges facing developers, such as those from a business point of view. We asked respondents what the main business challenges are, with a variety of options receiving signifi cant responses. The top two most selected options were ‘heritage concerns’ and ‘community concerns around change of use,’ both of which were selected by half of our respondents.
Concerns around heritage can come into play when the planning process – that would usually protect heritage buildings – is bypassed. Applications for full planning permission would ordinarily be subject to a Heritage Impact Assessment – which isn’t applicable when utilising PD. From a developer’s perspective, heritage buildings can be offputting due to the complicated nature of undertaking work while preserving the building’s integrity as much as possible. This can also link back to the potential for local backlash, which ties in to the other most selected option, ‘community concerns around change of use.’ It’s clear that public opinion is important to developers, and a cause for concern for them in this context from both a reputational and business perspective.
Other options selected in response to this question included ‘unforeseen planning issues’ (45%) and ‘issues with freeholders’ (41%). These both indicate that the supposed easy route PD offers – as it has perhaps been ‘sold’ to developers – is not strictly true. Despite the ability to bypass a drawn-out full planning application process, issues can still arise, particularly at the prior approval stage – and arguably more so due to the added complication of working with an existing building, often in a built-up urban environment.
Only 18% of respondents selected ‘lack of adequate regulation’ as a business challenge. This could be viewed as contradictory to reports that the quality of conversions is poor, indicating that there is in fact suffi cient regulation in place. On the other hand this could be indicative that reports are justifi ed and that a lack of adequate regulation is accurate but not a ‘problem’ for developers who could view this – albeit an immoral stance – as a positive.
Other criticisms of PD projects have stemmed from poor design standards. When asked how they rate the quality of commercial to residential projects in terms of design, 29% said they ‘don’t know’ and 24% said they are ‘not improving’. While this does mean a somewhat encouraging 48% answered that they are ‘improving’, over half of respondents are evidently not convinced this is the case. There is clearly still a lot of work to be done to improve the standard of projects completed under PD to improve the quality in every aspect – living standards, design quality and consequently public perception.
COST & BUSINESS IMPACT For a developer, cost is a highly important factor when considering potential PD projects. We asked respondents who
Do you believe that the reports of poor quality permitted developments (such as leading to space, light and overcrowding) have damaged the reputation of this type of project? Yes No Don’t know
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
had undertaken a project what the approximate build cost was, and offered a range of options for cost per square metre – beginning at £1,000 and reaching to over £3,500. The results were split evenly, with 50% of respondents having had build costs of £2,500 to £3,000, and 50% experiencing build costs of £3,000 to £3,500 per m2
.
While there are many factors that can infl uence build costs location, specifi cation etc both these are towards the higher end of what a developer might expect or hope to spend on a project. It could be down to the specifi cation and fi nish opted for, or the complicated nature of working with an existing building fabric that is likely not up to today’s standards and an internal layout that needs substantial reworking for a suitable conversion. A project within a heritage building could also bring added costs due to the potential restrictions and preservation work that may be required. Whatever the cause, a high build cost of potentially up to £3,500 per m2 many developers.
will inevitably be offputting to
Other challenges highlighted in the responses were ‘unforeseen planning issues’ (45%) and ‘issues with freeholders’ (41%). Unforeseen planning issues could arise for many reasons, from heritage and conservation area concerns to potential problems with noise levels and highways and access. Given the high likelihood that PD projects are located within urban areas, the chance of these problems arising is greater. Access within a busy town or city centre will be more diffi cult, and noise levels are also going to have more impact. Planning issues could also stem from the inability to meet daylight requirements or the Government’s own Nationally Described Space Standards, or the potential for contamination issues to arise such as the discovery of asbestos.
‘Issues with freeholders’ can also vary, ranging from things such as insurance complications, service charges and freeholder consent. Again this brings a whole host of potential challenges and hurdles to overcome, many of which are impossible to predict or anticipate.
WWW.HBDONLINE.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 |
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
