42 PERMITTED DEVELOPMENTS: CONVERTING URBAN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL PRACTICALITY & QUALITY
Addressing issues with quality is not as straightforward as it is with a new build, with developers having to work with existing fabric, likely built to lower standards. It’s fairly unsurprising that when asked what the main physical challenges in pursuing PDs are, after heritage the next most selected answer was ‘fabric upgrades and thermal performance’. The cost associated with making necessary improvements – whether glazing, insulation, draught proofi ng etc can be high, not to mention the time it adds to a project’s programme. Given the amount of negative press space standards have received, it’s again not all that surprising that it was the third most selected answer. Working within the confi nes of an existing building, within an existing fl oorplan and with existing windows can be diffi cult, particularly if the building is heritage and doesn’t allow for major changes. If windows are unable to be moved or added, but developers need to rightly ensure every room has at least one window, this can present design and logistical challenges. ‘Facades & windows’ was an option selected by 27% of respondents, as were ‘bathrooms & WCs’, ‘ventilation’, and ‘addressing vacant buildings’. These are again all challenges that are arguably not as prevalent when looking at new builds, and demonstrating that working under PD presents a host of logistical problems that aren’t present when undertaking a new build. Issues with the quality and standard – similarly to the concerns developers have over heritage buildings – could be eased by engaging an architect. Yet as previously referenced, only 36% of respondents are, with 55% unsure. Of the 9% who said they aren’t, we asked how they are doing the design and taking the project through the necessary planning process; they said they had the necessary ‘design expertise’ to undertake this role.
Leading on from this, we also asked respondents how they rate the design quality of commercial to residential projects in terms of design. Encouragingly, though admittedly still less than half, 48% of our cohort said the design quality is ‘improving’. However, 29% said they ‘don’t know’ and 24% said it’s ‘not improving’. The obvious solution to improve design quality is to engage an architect, which many are evidently not committing to yet. On the other hand, that of course comes with a cost which only adds to the already expensive build cost many developers are facing when undertaking PD projects. But until the quality – design or otherwise – improves, public backing of such projects will continue to founder.
DRIVERS To better understand the reasons PD appeals to developers, we asked what were their main drivers for pursuing a commercial to residential development. Respondents were asked to rate their top fi ve drivers, with their fi rst place answer scoring fi ve points and the fi fth scoring one point. When all responses were combined, ‘freedom from planning constraints’ came out as the top reason with a score of 52 points, closely followed by ‘revitalising urban areas’ (46 points), ‘sustainability’ (42 points), and ‘demand for urban sites to meet housing shortage’ (34 points). Responses were similar when asking respondents what the main benefi ts are, using the same scoring system. ‘Revitalising urban areas’ was top, scoring 56 points, followed by ‘sustainability’ with 44 points and ‘demand for urban sites to meet housing shortage’ in third at 43. Developers should be able to work in harmony with local communities, authorities and other potential stakeholders towards a shared goal.
CONCLUSION
There’s no disputing that while planning rules were modifi ed with the best intentions to improve and revive urban centres, permitted development projects have received less than favourable feedback, for a variety of reasons. The quality has been widely reported as not up to standard, with design issues, and a lack of suitable space and natural light. We confi rmed the various reasons developers were struggling to either undertake permitted development projects, or complete them to a required standard. Certain types of commercial projects are seemingly more suitable than others for conversion, and issues can arise when dealing with the existing fabric of older, and heritage buildings, or complicated layouts that exacerbate space and daylighting issues.
The negative reputation has also circled back to impact developers, with potential community concerns also proving to be an obstacle. The cost of completed projects has also crept towards the higher end of what might be expected for a residential project, particularly as costs should arguably be lower given the building already exists.
Despite the drawbacks, there were positives to be found in the approach to, as evidenced by our survey results. Many developers feel design quality is improving, despite a lack of
architect engagement – with the appropriate design team on board the quality of projects should only increase further. Developers have also been able to complete projects with a signifi cant number of units, helping towards the 1.5 million new homes target.
Our survey showed that permitted development has the potential to see developers giving sustainable future use to an extensive number of disused buildings. They recognise a number of benefi ts to undertaking PD projects, including their potential to revitalise urban areas and to meet local housing demand. While PD projects have not always met the standards required, the speed and volume at which they can be brought to market coupled with the sustainability credentials and revitalisation of failing urban areas shows they have a key role to play in meeting housebuilding targets. With the right guidance, appropriate policing and control, and improved support all round, these projects could be at least part of the solution to the country’s housing crisis.
For the full version of this white paper, visit the website:
insights.netmagmedia.co.uk
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
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
