Local planning authorities now have only two weeks to make their case to government to be exempted from controversial new rules that would allow offices to be converted into homes without planning permission. The results of an online survey published today by Planning suggest that the government may find itself inundated with requests to opt out. Of the 30 authorities that responded to our survey on the forthcoming permitted development rights for change of use from B1(a) offices to C3 residential purposes, 15 (50 per cent) said that they would seek an exemption. Eight authorities (26.7 per cent) said that they would not be seeking to opt out, while seven (23.3 per cent) said that they did not know if they would apply.
Q. Who are the change of use rebels?
A. So far, 18 local planning authorities have told Planning that they intend to seek exemptions. Those that have given use their permission to be named include a group of London boroughs: Southwark, Richmond-upon-Thames, Westminster, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, the City of London and Merton. But those seeking exemptions are not confined to the capital. They also include Uttlesford, Norwich and the Peak District National Park Authority.
Q. Why do they want to seek an exemption from the policy?
A. In order to be granted an exemption, local planning authorities must show that the new rights would lead to “the loss of a nationally significant area of economic activity”, or “substantial adverse economic consequences at the local authority level which are not offset by the positive benefits the new rights would bring”. Nine of the 15 authorities that told Planning’s survey that they will seek an exemption said that they would make their case for opting out on grounds of the latter. Five said that they would make their case based on both grounds, while one did not know.
While the forthcoming permitted development rights have been presented by the government as a way of converting long-term empty offices into new homes, they would apply to all offices – including those that are currently occupied. Therefore, the overriding concern shared by these authorities is that the policy could mean that landlords may look to cash in by switching their properties from offices to homes, as in many cases the values commanded by residential development are higher than for commercial uses (four councils comment on why they are seeking exemptions below). Matthew Spry, a director at planning consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, told Planning that the firm is supporting a number of authorities outside of London to make a case for exemption. Such authorities, he says, will be relying on existing office stock to meet business needs. “They are worried that the permitted development rights will incentivise the owners of that space to facilitate a shift to residential where values are higher,” he says.
Q. What are the rebels’ chances of success?
A. Planning minister Nick Boles told the communities and local government select committee last week that the government is “open to good arguments” from local planning authorities seeking to opt out from the new rules. However, the wording of chief planner Steve Quartermain’s letter on the changes suggests that the bar will be set pretty high. It says that exemptions will be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Nigel Hewitson, a partner at law firm Norton Rose, said that government’s criteria suggested that securing an exemption would be a “slam dunk” for central London authorities such as Westminster and the City of London. He said that areas with an oversupply of office buildings would find it difficult to make a case for exemption.
Spry said that local planning authorities with an existing up-to-date employment land review would find it easier to make a compelling case for exemption. “If an authority doesn’t have an existing evidence base it will be more difficult for them to make a case,” he adds.
Q. Have local authorities been given enough time to apply for an exemption?
A. Local planning authorities have been given until 22 February to make their case for exemption, four weeks after the chief planner wrote to them with details of the exemptions process on 24 January. “The time given is ludicrous,” says the head of planning policy at one rural northern authority. “You’ve got to justify it, do the consultation, get political approval in just four weeks. That’s something close to an impossible task.” Another planning chief agrees. “It’s a very short timescale,” he says. “It would be very unfortunate if we were rejected on the grounds of a lack of evidence when we were given just four weeks to produce it.” However, Andrew Taylor, assistant director of planning and development control at Uttlesford District Council, says: “Sometimes these things are too long. You can make a good case in only a couple of days.”
Q. Why have some councils decided not to seek an exemption?
A. Of the eight councils that said they would not be seeking an exemption, four said that they thought the measure would have negative consequences for their area, but because these consequences would not primarily be economic they do not believe the government’s criteria for exemption would be met. Another – Huntingdonshire District Council – said that it believed the impact on its area would be broadly neutral. Of the eight councils that said they would not be seeking an exemption, five said that they would consider using other powers to remove the permitted development rights, such as an article 4 direction or a condition in a planning permission.
The rebels: councils on why they are seeking exemptions
Paul McGarry, regeneration and policy lead at the London Borough of Merton, says:
“The government’s proposed changes directly undermine Merton’s Core Strategy and Economic Development Strategy, which seek to attract more office based, higher value jobs to the area. ”There may be areas of Merton where the government’s changes will help regeneration, but residential values are so high in Wimbledon we feel the changes would outprice office developments and be detrimental to the continuing economic success of Wimbledon.”
Robert Davis, deputy leader of Westminster City Council, says:
“The Government is being a little naive on this issue. In commercial areas like Westminster and the City of London we are successful largely because of businesses. To allow offices to convert to residential, you are going to lose the heart and centre of business. This kind of residential conversion will also only lead to expensive homes, not affordable homes, at a cost to the business community – which I think negates exactly what the government is trying to achieve in terms of housing and growth.”
Fiona Colley, cabinet member for regeneration and corporate strategy at the London Borough of Southwark, says:
“We are very concerned about the negative effect the proposals will have on areas of regeneration where offices and jobs are of vital importance. It could also mean that we are unable to require affordable housing and other benefits that are currently secured through granting planning permission. We will be applying for exemption from the policy, particularly in areas in the north of the borough where we see a real opportunity for business growth. In this time of economic malaise, it is more important than ever that businesses should not be priced out by government allowing developers free rein to convert offices.”
A London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames spokesman says:
“We are very concerned about the government’s proposal because of the relatively high value of residential use in comparison to offices and the limited availability of employment land and premises in the borough. Roger Tym and Partners have recently undertaken an employment land and premises review and officers are currently considering the areas where exemptions will be sought. However, the difficulty is that employment land/premises tend to be dispersed rather than concentrated in specific parts of the borough.”
Planning’s survey on the forthcoming permitted development rights is still open here. Image by Pleasence, Flickr.
