Have lessons been learnt from the current office-to-resi PDR rights?

COMMENT Last month was a big month for planning, and July promises to be even bigger. Boris Johnson’s pledge to “build, build, build” came hot on the heels of other changes that signal a fundamental shift away from tradition. The legislative detail is yet to emerge, but a policy paper is due later this month and having reignited the debate about switching to a zoning system, we are promised the “most radical” planning reforms that will allow us to “build better and build greener, but also build faster”. The prime minister’s speech announced a series of intended permitted development right amendments and follows the “upward extensions” PDR changes set out last week for existing residential blocks. The latest changes are around flexibility for commercial buildings, including rights for retail to be used as cafés or offices. These sit alongside the current office-to-resi right. In addition, permission will not be necessary to demolish and rebuild vacant and redundant residential and commercial buildings if they are rebuilt as homes. As much as I enjoyed the prime minister’s reference to the “newt-counting delays in our system”, having seen the mixed effects of the office-to-residential rights change, I wonder if lessons have been learnt, and if this latest loosening can deliver a meaningful contribution to the housing supply or economic recovery challenges. Without question, PDR sped up housing delivery and these houses were mostly net gains. But did those homes meet our expectations of quality or amenity? Some office-to-resi developments compromised location, size, amenities and environmental impacts, which I would argue fails the better and greener tests. The RICS report from 2018 is worth reading. OK, boomer Spending more time at home during lockdown has highlighted a disparity across the generations. While only a small proportion of people live in office-to-resi  developments, many younger people live in small flats without outdoor amenity and the so-called “boomer” generation live in houses with now beautifully manicured lawns. This has affected the perspective of the quality of our homes. It is unlikely the new right for upward extensions will deliver a flood of houses, as it will only apply to a narrow band of buildings and circumstances. Buildings must have three or more storeys at present and fewer than around seven, as the overall extended height must be below 30m. They must be purpose-built detached residential blocks, not converted offices or warehouses, built between 1948 and March 2018. The extension must not be in a conservation area, on a listed building, in an SSSI, hazard area, or within 3km of an aerodrome. London alone has around 10 aerodromes, so this last provision might rule out much of west London around Heathrow and most of east London around City Airport. Is this PDR any less complex than seeking conventional permission? There is still a requirement to apply to the local authority for “prior approval” to determine whether conventional permission is required. These prior approval tests include the external appearance, impact on highways and air traffic, risks around contamination and flooding and adequate natural light in habitable rooms. This sounds very much like a normal planning application, which already introduces the requirements for better and greener in many instances. Does the stick of a housing target or the carrot of CIL make it sufficiently tempting to confirm that prior approval is not required? Democratic deficit The urgent desire to create the economic stimulus through PDR is understandable. It is an immediate measure, whereas getting a zoning system into operation would most likely take years, not months. In the meantime, if PDR is to be extended it needs to ensure high-quality outcomes. Otherwise, future generations might ask: were we simply chasing targets without considering whether these homes met our needs? July’s promised planning policy paper will be a fundamentally important read. It will be a test of the value we place on planning’s current perceived exacting but time-consuming nature, its ability to protect value and the public’s attitude to public consultation. There is an inherent democratic deficit associated with significant PDR changes, which may or may not be in society’s wider interests and it will be interesting to see whether people are prepared to accept their voice in future being heard at the zoning stage and much less thereafter.  Will Lingard is senior director, planning at CBRE