You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
New homes on high streets – are the government’s proposals likely to work?
A consultation on planning changes to encourage the building of homes above existing shops closes on Monday. Rory Stracey looks at how effective the proposals could be
The health of our high streets came into acute focus in 2018. Toys R Us, Poundworld, House of Fraser and Maplin all called in the administrators.
Others such as Marks & Spencer, Debenhams and Carphone Warehouse to name a few have announced a raft of store closures. It wasn’t just retailers who suffered – restaurant chains such as Jamie’s Italian and Prezzo were also notable casualties.
The shortfall in housebuilding also continued unabated in 2018, and it is expected that completions will again fall well short of the government’s 250,000-home target.
In response to this, the government is proposing to deregulate the planning system by extending permitted development rights to allow a more flexible approach to changes of use, and to enable new homes to be built in high street locations. The consultation closes on Monday.
“The new ‘build upwards’ permitted development right would allow additional storeys to be built above existing commercial and residential buildings without planning permission”
New permitted development rights would make it easier to change the use of high street premises, enabling the high street to react rapidly to a changing consumer landscape.
Under the proposals Class A1 (shops), A2 (financial services) and A5 (takeaways) premises will be permitted to change to B1 (offices).
However, it is the government’s proposals for new homes on the high street that are most eye-catching – a permitted development right to build upwards by adding new homes on top of existing buildings.
READ MORE
The new ‘build upwards’ permitted development right would allow additional storeys to be built above existing commercial and residential buildings without planning permission.
The build upwards permitted development right will not apply in sensitive areas such as conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks, world heritage sites or where a listed building would be affected.
The National Planning Policy Framework already advises local planning authorities to “support opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes. In particular, they should allow upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene”.
“The government clearly sees this as a ‘two birds, one stone’ solution, whereby building up will save the high street and solve the housing crisis”
So the new build upwards permitted development right would be consistent with the government’s brownfield-first approach.
The government has explained that building up in this way “offers an opportunity to bring forward well-designed homes which enhance the streetscape while making effective use of land for housing, boosting housing density in areas of high demand such as our town centres and high streets, increasing footfall and preventing unwanted garden grabbing”.
The government clearly sees this as a ‘two birds, one stone’ solution, whereby building up will save the high street and solve the housing crisis.
But there are complications with this proposal that the government is yet to resolve. For example, how high is too high? Should the tallest building in the terrace be used as a reference point, or should there be an assessment of the prevailing building heights in the locality? Should a maximum number of storeys be imposed?
How should issues such as overshadowing or overlooking be dealt with to ensure adjoining land uses are not harmed?
Should the permitted development rights also apply to out-of-town retail parks, or just town centres?
What design constraints should apply to the upwards extension, including any structural works that might be required? What conditions should be imposed to limit the impact during construction?
Permitted development rights were originally conceived as a way of reducing red tape – granting automatic consent for standardised and uncontroversial types of development such as garden sheds and house extensions.
“The built form and character of Britain’s high streets is so diverse that it will be difficult to legislate in a way that maximises opportunity and certainty for house builders”
The unresolved questions arising from the build upwards proposals highlight the difficulties in using permitted development rights as a one-size-fits-all solution to solve complex development issues.
The built form and character of Britain’s high streets is so diverse that it will be difficult to legislate in a way that maximises opportunity and certainty for house builders, while also providing safeguards to protect the amenity of our high streets.
It may be that in order to safeguard this amenity the prior approval process will give local authorities the ability to object to ‘build upwards’ proposals on a much wider range of grounds than we have seen with office-to-residential permitted development rights.
But like office-to-residential permitted development rights, the build upwards proposals will almost certainly enable developers to avoid providing affordable housing or making other developer contributions, which may increase uptake.
The use of permitted development rights to liberalise high street uses and to encourage new homes in the high street will provide some tonic for the health of the high street, but it will provide little remedy to the shortfall in housebuilding.
Rory Stracey, partner, Trowers & Hamlins
