Hannah Quarterman and David Wood offer their views on the government’s planning reforms.
The impact of Covid-19 on the economy is inescapable for anyone walking down the country’s deserted high streets and around its empty offices. What is perhaps more worrying for the real estate industry is that the current lack of activity is seen not as a temporary blip resulting from the pandemic, but as an acceleration of existing market trends. The increase in internet shopping and home working, for example, was already having a visible impact. On the other hand, irrespective of the pandemic, the housing need in many areas of the country remains acute and needs continued attention.
It is therefore completely understandable – and entirely correct – that the government wants to be seen as taking decisive action. And take action it has, with a raft of recent changes announced by Whitehall over the past couple of months aimed at introducing flexibility to the planning system, speeding up decision making, and even removing the need for consent in certain circumstances. But fundamental questions exist as to whether this is the right action or if, instead, we are running the risk of long term place-making pain in exchange for short term gains in economic activity.
Permitted development – up to standard?
Among the many recent changes announced, there has been a flurry of new permitted development rights, primarily making it easier to deliver residential accommodation without the need to secure express planning permission. These new rights include permitting upwards extensions of existing properties, as well as the right to demolish vacant buildings previously put to a variety of uses and reconstruct them for housing.
There is little doubt that these measures will result in more homes being brought forward, but it is less clear whether they will be the right homes in the right places. After years of anecdotal evidence and speculation as to the quality of homes created as a result of the permitted change from office and industrial to residential, a recent report commissioned by the government has confirmed that in many cases these homes fall far short of the standards demanded where planning permission is required.
One of the most stark examples was the widely reported decision that prior approval could not be refused simply because the resultant homes would not have windows. This rightly led to uproar, and that shortcoming has now been addressed by the introduction of a requirement to ensure adequate natural light in habitable rooms within all new homes. Setting aside potential debates around what qualifies as “adequate” daylight, the new PDRs do nothing to address other key issues which impact on the quality of homes – things like internal space standards, access to outside space, and proximity to amenities. There is also still no attempt to address the impact of such permitted development on local social infrastructure.
There are also questions around what is being sacrificed in order to deliver these additional homes. There are very good reasons why many local planning authorities have policies in place protecting what are often seen as less valuable uses, such as certain employment and industrial uses. The protections for these uses – which perform a valuable social and economic function – risk being seriously eroded by the right to introduce residential accommodation instead.
The Use Classes Order
The introduction at the start of September of the expansive new Class E (commercial, business and service) use class – within which a change of use will not require planning permission – is intended to allow a mix of uses to reflect changing retail and business models, which increasingly call for flexibility in different parts of a building, depending on different times of the day.
The new Class E will incorporate the existing shops (A1), financial and professional services (A2), restaurants and cafés (A3) and offices (B1) classes. It also subsumes uses including gyms, nurseries and health centres (currently in use classes D1 (non-residential institutions) and D2 (assembly and leisure)). The government considers that bringing these uses within one class and allowing movement between them ought to allow businesses to be able to respond and adapt quickly to changing circumstances and demands.
A laudable ambition, no doubt, and the flexibility will certainly be welcomed. But already the changes are giving rise to some thorny issues. The sheer breadth of the new Class E will surely make it more tempting than ever for developers and investors to discard marginal uses in favour of more economically viable options. The asset management opportunities are plain to see – but so is the potential for wholesale changes to the mix and make-up of our town centres.
In practical terms, developers and local authority planners are already grappling with the new Class E world. With no ability to control changes of use within Class E, how will planning authorities ensure that a suitable mix of uses comes forward, and to what extent will they seek to regain control over changes of use by imposing conditions on fresh consents? It’s equally conceivable that applicants may end up self-regulating and proposing restrictions of their own in order to reduce the scope of any environmental or retail impact assessment, and to limit their exposure to a litany of planning obligations required as a result of particular uses.
What’s next?
With the publication of its “Planning for the Future” consultation, the government continues to press on with its radical reforms to the planning system to “get Britain building and drive our economic recovery” through the designation of land for growth, renewal and protection. In that context, we can expect to see even more initiatives to get the contactless machines bleeping and the share prices rising. In the current economic context, that has to be right – but the value of place-making shouldn’t be forgotten along the way.
Hannah Quarterman is partner and head of planning and David Wood is a senior associate at Hogan Lovells International
