Shadow Housing Secretary, John Healey MP, has announced that the next Labour Government will scrap ‘permitted development’ rules for new homes, ending a get-out clause which allows developers to dodge social housing obligations and build slum housing. LABM garners opinion from across the sector.
Permitted development rights introduced since 2013 allow developers to bypass the normal planning process by converting commercial spaces into housing without the consent of the council and local community. This gives developers a get-out from requirements to provide affordable housing and meet basic quality rules such as space standards creating ‘rabbit hutch’ flats.
The changes were introduced to boost housebuilding numbers, but the measures mean housing units just a few feet wide in former office blocks are now counted in official statistics as ‘new homes’. There are 42,000 new housing units that have been converted from offices since 2015.
Research by the Local Government Association has estimated that over 10,000 affordable homes have been lost as a result of permitted development in the last three years alone.
Research for the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors found that permitted development has ‘allowed extremely poor-quality housing to be developed’, with only 30% of homes built through permitted development meeting national space standards.
John Healey MP, Labour’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “Conservative permitted development rules have created a get-out clause for developers to dodge affordable homes requirements and build slum housing.
“To fix the housing crisis, we need more genuinely affordable, high-quality homes. This Conservative housing free-for-all gives developers a free hand to build what they want but ignore what local communities need.
“Labour will give local people control over the housing that gets built in their area and ensure developers build the low-cost, high-quality homes that the country needs.”
Commitment to scrapping permitted development
Fiona Howie, Chief Executive of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), said: “The TCPA has long campaigned against extending permitted development rights to allow the conversion of commercial buildings to housing. This was because of a range of concerns including the poor quality of many of the resulting homes, the inappropriate locations of some of those homes, and the way that by bypassing proper planning processes developers can avoid funding new affordable homes. We have seen, for example, new houses built on industrial estates where the only space for children who live there to play outside is a car park. The TCPA strongly welcomes, therefore, this commitment from the Labour Party.
“We recognise there is an urgent need for more homes but they must be decent, safe homes that will enhance people’s health and wellbeing. The government has suggested solving the problem by tweaking permitted development rights to recognise the importance of design. But this is not enough because we need new homes to be developed within high quality places that enhance people’s lives. Using permitted development rights to create new homes simply is not creating good places.”
Victoria Hills, Chief Executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute, added: “The Institute has long argued that PDRs put housing affordability and design quality at risk and undermines the planning system, so we welcome Labour’s move.
“Contrary to what many think, PDRs do not alleviate councils from onerous work. Instead, they create a disproportionate administrative burden for local authorities while preventing them from collecting proper planning fees and developer contributions for affordable housing and infrastructure. Local authorities and local communities must be in the driving seat for shaping the housing and their local area as part of a planned, local vision.”
Permitted development must be reviewed
The National Federation of Builders (NFB) welcomes the renewed focus on PDR because reform is required, especially on quality, suitability and affordability. However, it would challenge the Labour Party to understand how it could already deliver the changes it is seeking. The NFB said that local authorities could already withdraw PDRs through a policy called ‘Article 4’, which has been used by some Labour councils. For example, an exemption exists in many London boroughs and in Manchester.
Where Labour is correct according to the NFB is on the ‘get-out’ clause for affordable housing. The Local Government Association (LGA) reports that the rules around PDR have resulted in local communities missing out on more than 10,000 homes since 2016.
Richard Beresford, Chief Executive of the NFB, said: “Permitted development on office to residential must be reviewed. Although it has its place, permitted development isn’t delivering enough affordable family homes and it should be doing more than simply increasing the number of individual housing units.”
Rico Wojtulewicz, Head of Housing and Planning Policy for the House Builders Association (HBA), added: “The issue lies in how local authorities interpret planning rules. Local policy can stop permitted development and make planning easier for local companies delivering more affordable housing and high-quality homes. However, councils make planning harder for smaller builders and embrace a development style that attracts investors rather than builders.”
Planning must be properly funded
If a future Labour Government was to scrap commercial to residential permitted development it must also come forward with proposals to properly resource our chronically underfunded planning system, according to the Federation of Master Builders (FMB).
Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the FMB, said: “If Labour is going to put more strain on the planning system by scrapping commercial to residential permitted development, it must also think carefully about how planning will be resourced. Small and medium-sized housebuilders cite the planning process as the third greatest barrier to them increasing their delivery of new homes. Planning departments are chronically underfunded and we can’t ask them to do more without providing them with additional funding.”
Berry continued: “We mustn’t make permitted development synonymous with poor quality as it can have create really positive outcomes. In recent years, permitted development rules governing domestic properties have been relaxed, which has made it easier for home owners to extend their homes without having to go through the rigmarole of a full planning application. These permissions have proved popular among builders and homeowners alike. The reason being is that they give even more people the opportunity to add a bit more space — eight metres for a detached house and six metres for an attached house — to their home. In short, let’s not damn all permitted development. It would also be good to see proposals from Labour regarding how we can more easily convert empty spaces above shops. There are 300,000 to 400,000 new homes, which could be created by making use of empty spaces above shops on our high streets. Surely we make use of permitted development regulations in a way that utilises these spaces without bringing to market tiny uninhabitable homes. This would have the added benefit of revitalising our struggling high streets across the country.”
Berry concluded: “We do completely accept the point that we must prevent ‘rabbit hutch’ homes without windows being developed under permitted development. Tiny uninhabitable homes are not something the FMB would ever support. Small and medium-sized construction firms compete on quality and that’s at the heart of everything they do. We support Labour’s drive to reform permitted development to prevent low quality conversions and will work with them to achieve this.”
Peter Hogg, UK Cities Director at Arcadis, said: “Converting redundant or disused offices into residential property can be a quick, cost-effective and environmentally responsible way to provide much-needed homes. However, conversion has to be well thought-through and executed, and must provide homes — and communities — of a quality that genuinely improve quality of life and are great places to live, work and play. What we don’t want are poor quality conversions or the use of permitted development rights to avoid meeting acceptable standards for residential accommodation. Even when converting office space to create ‘meanwhile’ accommodation — homes that are only ever meant to be temporary — it is possible to deliver homes and communities of good quality and which meet the needs and aspirations of those occupying them. These homes can be quickly and cost-effectively delivered and make a positive, additive contribution to the nation’s stock of homes.”
