Permitted development rights, according to the government, are the “national grant of planning permission which allow certain building works and changes of use to be carried out without having to make a planning application”.
In the context of turning office buildings into residential use, PDR gets most property developers and local authorities hot under the collar.
The BPF has always broadly supported the policy. It was never going to be a silver bullet to deliver a high volume of homes, but is a useful tool for breathing life into under-used buildings in certain places.
There are, of course, places where this doesn’t work, and a bustling metropolitan hub like Westminster quite rightly has objections. It is with this in mind that we support an extension (expected in the coming weeks) giving local authorities with strategically important commercial hubs time to apply for Article 4 exemptions for such areas.
There is speculation that there will be a new element to the policy when it is extended – a requirement to include a percentage of starter homes in the development. Given that the government needs starter homes and has always seen PDR as having “escaped” an affordable housing requirement, this is not outside the realms of possibility.
It would raise eyebrows among developers, however, as starter home requirements will have an inevitable impact on the viability of some sites, and we hope any percentage stipulated in policy has been tested against real-life examples around the country.
But should this go ahead, the BPF would have another concern. We would worry that, in its rush to deliver an ambitious 200,000 starter homes by 2020, the government is overlooking an important sector that has an important part to play in solving the housing challenge – build-to-rent.
There are several innovative build-to-rent operators that have used PDR to deliver large-scale rental schemes across the country, and several are banking on the extension going ahead to deliver more schemes.
Not only could the starter homes requirement prove a blow to a number of fledgling build-to-rent schemes, but it is also indicative of the government’s approach to housing as a whole.
Since May, the government has thrown the book at initiatives geared towards owner-occupation. While owning a home is something many aspire to, the number of private renters in the UK is now the second-largest tenure in England and demand for quality rental homes needs
to be met.
Bearing in mind £30bn investment is poised to enter the sector, and that it has the potential to add significantly to new home completions in the UK, encouraging the purpose-built rented sector is really in the government’s interests.
The government must incentivise owner occupation, private and social rented housing if the industry is to deliver the numbers required.
Ideally, we would like to see the extension go ahead with an exemption from the starter homes requirement if the scheme is to be turned into rented accommodation.
Build-to-rent has much to offer, and the government is missing a trick if it doesn’t recognise this.
Melanie Leech is chief executive of the British Property Federation
