The fall of yet more retail giants last year – HMV, Toys R Us and House of Fraser to name a few – is further evidence of the need to create a more balanced offer in our town centres. We need to move away from traditional commercial formats and draw footfall back to the places where shops and office fronts have been long abandoned.
Whether it’s converting empty buildings into new homes, creating temporary pop-ups to encourage innovation or demolishing and rebuilding altogether, we need a planning system that is flexible enough to allow these things to go ahead when considered, well-designed proposals are presented. Whilst flexibility is key, we also need whatever replaces empty shops to be well designed, long-lasting and in-keeping with the local environment. Plans put forward under permitted development, however, are not required to have these vital ingredients, which has resulted in poor quality housing since the policy was introduced in 2013.
At the RIBA we have been outspoken in our opposition to the homes that are delivered through office to residential conversions under permitted development. Bringing empty office space back into use as residential where there is a shortage of housing is a good solution for many places, but the current policy is designed in a way that significantly disadvantages developers seeking to deliver decent homes. It allows housing to be built to a demonstrably poor standard by anyone looking to turn a quick profit, with little thought given to the internal and amenity space required to enable occupants to live healthy lives, while also absolving any contributions to affordable housing and local infrastructure.
Yet the government’s recent consultation on extending permitted development rights goes even further than this, by proposing to allow significantly more buildings to change use – and even be demolished and rebuilt – with no oversight from the local authority. This directly contradicts the government’s other policy initiatives aimed at reviving British high streets.
The High Streets Fund was introduced to foster local leadership and support authorities to adapt the high street to reflect a local vision. Yet the use of permitted development directly prevents the implementation of this.
Many local authorities have already sought to prevent the unfettered loss of employment space that has resulted since the policy was introduced through special planning regulations called Article 4 directions. How can local leaders be expected to determine how best to adapt their town centres when their plans are at constant risk of being undermined by opportunistic development? Even if a local council finds a developer who is interested in quality and good design, the likelihood is they will be sidelined using the loopholes that permitted development creates by somebody looking to generate a quick return and then move on.
It’s clear that ensuring flexibility will be an important part of the solution to the decline of local centres, enabling change when spaces become redundant. Surely the purpose of the planning system is to support this where good proposals are presented. Flexibility is not the stripping back of regulations to create a free for all. There are examples up and down the country of locally led initiatives that are delivering positive solutions to revive town centres. Instead of pursuing the further extension of a misguided and damaging policy, the Government should genuinely commit to supporting local leaders to create innovative and fluid visions that deliver long-term sustainable solutions for the future of their town centres.
