Are PDRs a free-for-all and cause for disputes?

COMMENT On 28 January, the government closed its latest consultation on the use of permitted development rights within the planning system: Supporting housing delivery and public service infrastructure. As the name indicates, it consulted on plans for streamlined public infrastructure planning regimes as well as for new PDRs for changes of use to residential in a bid to bring further flexibility to planning and help create new homes. In recent years, the government has been very focused on using the PDR regime to boost housing delivery numbers in an attempt to reach its target of 300,000 new homes a year. This began in 2015 with PDRs for office-to-residential conversions and was expanded last summer with the introduction of PDRs for upwards extensions in residential properties. The latest proposals build on the creation of a new use class introduced last year – class E – encompassing commercial, business and service uses, and would see office, retail and leisure uses all benefit from PDRs for conversions to residential use without the need for a full planning application. It is suggested in the consultation that these measures will help diversify and support the high street. Beware of unintended consequences The exercise of PD (in this case) still requires prior approval to be granted so it maintains some local authority control, but results in a light touch approach to planning compared to a normal application process. While this undoubtedly has benefits, notably in accelerating decision-making within the planning system and speeding up the delivery of new homes, it also has many drawbacks. Office-to-residential PD conversions have successfully boosted housing numbers but have also resulted in some questionable schemes. There is a risk that the proliferation of such developments leads to a growing number of low-quality homes lacking in internal space, daylight, air quality or soundproofing. This could lead to problems down the line but in the short-term the use of PDRs poses another issue: that of a significant rise in disputes. Although the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in some degree of flight from town and city centres to the countryside, the long-term trend of people moving to live in densely populated urban centres remains strong. Given the fact that it is precisely in these urban centres that most office, retail and leisure properties are likely to be situated, it is safe to assume that a large proportion of PD conversions to residential property will take place in these areas. When one imagines the potential disruption a flurry of developments could have on a high street or a mixed-use area, it is not difficult to imagine where disputes may arise. The “agent of change” principle that came into force with the implementation of the revised National Planning Policy Framework in 2018 holds a person or business responsible for a new land use liable for the impact of that change in use. What this means in the planning application process is that planning authorities have to take into account the use of an area before new development is introduced and any adverse effects that existing developments may have on the new development. If this agent of change principle is not incorporated into the prior approval process, developments in densely populated areas are likely to find disruption caused to residents from local existing businesses, leading to an increase in complaints relating to noise, pollution and even the character of a neighbourhood. What this could lead to is the local authority having to take action against the types of uses that are more generally found in these sorts of areas such as pubs, nightclubs and restaurants in order to mitigate the potential nuisance caused. This is precisely the sort of complaint that the planning system is designed to mitigate against. Potential for long-term change Class E itself was introduced in order to provide alternative uses for potentially redundant retail space. Class E PDRs take this one step further in introducing residential development in areas where planning policies may normally prevent changes of use to residential in order to protect the high street. Of course, this is being proposed at a time when there is great uncertainty over retail property in particular, but also office and leisure space, so we can expect a large number of landlords to examine such plans with interest. If the new proposals go ahead and there is indeed mass take-up, the high streets and city centres of England may never look the same again, with traditional commercial stock evaporating to make way for new homes. Whether this would act as a further blow or a lease of life for our town and city centres is yet to be determined, but the rise in complaints brought about by competing uses could be entirely foreseeable. Residential developers in these locations could find units hard to let or sell due to the existence of other uses nearby if they were to impose restrictions on occupiers making complaints. Effectively, occupiers would have to accept a level of nuisance that normally would not be acceptable to most residential occupiers, leading to a lower quality of residential development than would normally be acceptable.  At times, it has felt like the government has viewed PDRs as a panacea for the housing crisis. They can certainly play their part in simplifying the planning system and helping to increase housing supply, but planning authorities still have a role to play in controlling the quality of new developments as well as how these might impact on the local area. If local planning authorities are not able to do so through the normal planning application process, with local plan policies being applied and appropriate conditions being agreed between the applicant and the local planning authority, it could seem like a free-for-all. Katherine Evans is partner and head of planning at TLT Picture © Ray Tang/LNP/Shutterstock