A survey by Estates Gazette last month found that there were more than 2,250 applications for change of use from office to residential in the first six months since this change was introduced in May 2013.
But some local councils have tried to undermine the rules, according to planning minister Nick Boles who said that they will given additional information to clarify the situation so that more much needed homes can be developed.
Under the new rules developers do not need to allow for full planning permission with the aim of making it easier to convert these kind of buildings. The policy also aims to promote brown field regeneration, increase footfall in town centres and boost housing supply.
‘These new flexibilities have been well received by the housing industry and are helping to bring forward much needed new homes across England. Some of these developments are, in themselves, each set to deliver more than 100 homes,’ said planning minister Nick Boles.
‘By making efficient use of existing buildings, we are helping to tackle the housing shortage across England whilst simultaneously creating jobs in the construction and services industries. The significant take up is good news,’ he commented.
‘Unlike other permitted development rights, and recognising that this new national right could affect areas differently, we offered local authorities the opportunity to seek an exemption where they could demonstrate an adverse economic impact,’ he explained.
He pointed out that all requests for exemption underwent a robust and thorough assessment. In total, 33 areas were exempt in 17 local authorities. ‘We kept in place a light touch prior approval process, to allow any transport, contamination and flooding issues to be addressed by councils. Under a prior approval process, councils can still refuse the application, on these set grounds,’ Boles added.
The London Borough of Islington, and others, recently challenged the exemption process in the courts. However, their claims were dismissed by the High Court and have not been appealed.
Boles also pointed out that with permitted development rights, there may be unique circumstances where a local authority deems it appropriate to remove a national right by using what is known as an Article 4 direction.
‘To ensure these powers are used appropriately, local authorities are required to notify my department whenever they make a direction. This is different from the regime under the last administration where Secretary of State’s express approval was required for most Article 4 directions; now the Secretary of State has a reserve power. Importantly, the office to residential process operates differently from other permitted development rights, given the exemption process,’ he said.
‘I am now aware of eight local authorities who have made directions which prevent office to home conversions under national rights. These directions vary in extent, some apply to entire local authority areas and others are targeted at specific sites. Having reflected on the reasoned justification presented by each authority for their Article 4 direction, and given the special exemption process which had already taken place, it is considered that the London Borough of Islington and Broxbourne Borough Council have applied their directions disproportionately,’ Boles explained.
‘My department is therefore writing to these authorities to request that they consider reducing the extent of their directions so that they are more targeted. This will ensure that offices which should legitimately benefit from this national right can do so. Ministers are minded to cancel Article 4 directions which seek to re-impose unjustified or blanket regulation, given the clearly stated public policy goal of liberalising the planning rules and helping provide more homes,’ he added.
He also said that some local authorities may be unclear on the correct intention of the detail provisions of national legislation for office to home conversions. In some instances, authorities do not appear to have applied the correctly intended tests to determine applications for prior approval and have sought to levy developer contributions where they are not appropriate (on matters unrelated to the prior approval process).
‘To ensure the permitted development rights are utilised fairly across England, my department will update our planning practice guidance to councils to provide greater clarity on these points. Unjustified state levies should not be applied in any attempt to frustrate the creation of new homes,’ he pointed out.
‘These practical planning reforms are providing badly needed new homes on brown field sites, close to urban locations and transport links, at no cost to the taxpayer. Yet a small minority of town halls are trying to undermine these reforms, not least, since they are unable to hit such builders with state levies or since they may have an irrational objection to more private housing,’ Boles explained.
‘These conversions coming forward will help offer competitively priced properties, accessible to hard working people. Moreover, those who seek to oppose these changes need to spell out exactly where they think new homes should go instead given the pressing demand for housing and the need to protect England’s beautiful countryside,’ he added.
‘Ministers wish to send a clear message to the housing industry that we will act to provide certainty, confidence and clarity, and that we are supporting their investment in these new homes to bring under-used property back into productive use as housing,’ he concluded.
