Almost half of London’s 35 local planning authorities make no reference to build-to-rent in their emerging or adopted local plans, research has found.
The London Plan provides a strong policy foundation for BTR developments, but support at local borough level remains inconsistent, according to consultancy Lichfields. Only 16 boroughs make reference to BTR in their emerging or adopted local plans.
The Planning for Rent insight report found that almost half (45%) of bespoke BTR sites are within inner London, and 41% of bespoke BTR developments, secured via specific planning applications, are in just four boroughs: Brent, Newham, Ealing and Enfield.
Adam Donovan, planning director at Lichfields, who is co-author of the report with senior director Ben Kelway, said: “It is evident that while the London Plan provides a robust and positive framework for build-to-rent, there is a need for individual boroughs to echo this support. Boroughs must adopt a more proactive approach and align their planning policies to genuinely harness the benefits of BTR.
“In failing to do so, the BTR sector in London is being detrimentally affected despite the high demand for secure, well-managed rental properties. If local authorities developed a bespoke policy for BTR developments, the sector would become a lot stronger and more stable, helping to meet the chronic housing need in the capital.”
The London Plan advocates greater flexibility in design policies for BTR schemes in comparison with traditional for-sale schemes. However, Lichfields’ study indicates that this is not happening in practice. For instance, half of London’s BTR projects were granted planning permission as build-for-sale residential developments but later managed by BTR operators.
The report found that local borough policies consistently failed to differentiate between for-sale housing and BTR schemes, meaning that applications for BTR are assessed against policy designed for private-sale developments. This creates a requirement for each planning application for BTR to provide individual justification, which Lichfields says makes the planning process for BTR more complex than it needs to be.
Kelway added: “What is needed is a greater differentiation in development management policies and more flexibility in their application to assist in the delivery of BTR schemes.
“In particular, policies covering design standards, amenity space requirements and dwelling mix should reflect the specificities of BTR.
“BTR policy has come a long way in the past 10 years as the sector has matured and continues to grow. However, the planning system at a local authority level could do far more to promote and facilitate BTR developments in London.
“The opportunities presented by good-quality BTR developments in the right locations are significant in terms of housing delivery, affordable housing and London’s communities.
“With the right local policy in place, the BTR market in London can thrive and, importantly, create a blueprint nationally for build-to-rent housing.
“We must push the BTR initiatives higher up the housing agenda, so they can positively contribute to housing delivery, not just in London but nationwide.”
The Planning for Rent insight report reviewed BTR planning applications that have been approved since 2009. It assessed the spatial distribution of these developments across the London boroughs, providing an analysis of how these development patterns align with policy.
To send feedback, e-mail julia.cahill@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGJuliaC or @EGPropertyNews
