Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Factory floor to front door

Factory floor to front door

Tom Willshaw 12 Jan 2018
Assessing the case for removing light industrial to residential permitted development rights The temporary permitted development right (PDR) for change of use from Use Class B1(c) light industrial to C3 residential came into force on 1 October 2017. This means that light industrial premises which have a floor area of less than 500 sqm can now be converted to residential use under the prior approval process, rather than requiring an application for planning permission. The temporary PDR is in force until 1 October 2020 (though any changes of use permitted during this period are permanent). The process is subject to various limitations and conditions, which are covered in an earlier blog by my colleague Owain Nedin. The new PDR represents another of the Government’s wide-ranging measures aimed at boosting housing supply across the country. However, the PDR raises some potential issues for the future economic vitality of local areas that local planning authorities may need to consider. These include: permanent loss of business space, particularly of smaller industrial and workshop premises which can play an important role in the local economy; limiting the ability of local areas to plan effectively for business needs, employment and growth; and creating potential uncertainty for businesses and reduced scope for land use planning and place making for the local planning authority. Local planning authorities have the ability to remove PDRs by introducing what is known as an ‘Article 4 Direction’. This allows authorities to require change of use applications, meaning they can refer to the development plan and weigh material considerations into the balance in the process of making a decision. An Article 4 Direction requires a clear justification and a defined boundary for the proposed exemption area. Local authorities must therefore compile the necessary evidence to meet these requirements. There are two main types of Article 4 Direction: immediate and non-immediate. An immediate Direction removes a PDR with immediate effect, but must be confirmed by the local planning authority following local consultation within six months, or else the Direction will lapse. A non-immediate Direction comes into force after a period of 12 months and the PDR is removed upon confirmation of the Direction by the local planning authority following local consultation. Lichfields has developed a staged analytical framework to support local authorities in making a robust case for implementing a non-immediate Article 4 Direction. The framework draws on a range of economic data sources, local commercial property market signals and the existing planning policy position. It enables local authorities to scope, evidence and prepare the case for an Article 4 Direction, by identifying and quantifying light industrial stock that qualifies for the PDR and the wider significance of this space within a local area in terms of business activity and economic value. In turn, this can allow an appropriate exemption area to be defined and taken forward through the due process as the basis for making a Direction. Lichfields recently prepared such an analysis (also including offices which are subject to similar PDRs) for the town of Newhaven on behalf of Lewes District Council. Newhaven was one of 18 locations that were awarded Enterprise Zone status in 2015. As part of the analysis, Lichfields quantified the number of eligible light industrial premises in the town and the proportion that fall within the Enterprise Zone area. Light industrial floorspace clustering example output.  The analysis shows that Newhaven is an important location for light industrial activities in Lewes District, containing around a quarter of the local authority’s total stock of light industrial space. Furthermore, the vast majority of light industrial premises that are eligible for the PDR are within the Enterprise Zone, which has been designed to help stimulate the growth of the local economy. The quantitative analysis was coupled with site assessments to identify the function of different employment clusters in the town. The analysis concluded that the Enterprise Zone supports considerable light industrial activity, which is likely to develop further given that priority sectors for the Enterprise Zone include environmental technologies and healthcare and biologics. Lewes District Council’s Planning Applications Committee reviewed Lichfields’ analysis and found that it provided “clear evidence to support the implementation of Article 4 directions in Newhaven to protect office and light industrial use”. The Committee resolved to approve the Directions in October 2017 and these are likely to come into force later this year. They will serve to protect employment floorspace in Newhaven, thereby supporting the expansion of innovative, high value growth sectors in the Enterprise Zone. The new PDR has potential implications for industrial locations across the UK. The recently published Draft London Plan encourages London Boroughs to introduce Article 4 Directions where appropriate to ensure they can retain sufficient industrial and logistics capacity. As identified in Lichfields’ London Plan Insight, the vast majority of Boroughs are expected to retain or increase their existing industrial capacity. The implementation of Article 4 Directions will be vital to support the economic function of industrial clusters across the capital to help meet the ambitious targets for economic growth set out in the London Plan. Lichfields’ Article 4 Direction framework brings together robust analysis of local property markets and economic indicators which can help local authorities identify and prepare the case for making a Direction. For further information, please see our information flyer or get in touch.

CONTINUE READING

The London Plan: A new direction for planning in London

The London Plan: A new direction for planning in London

Margaret Baddeley & Giorgio Wetzl 29 Nov 2017
The draft London Plan has been published today for consultation, starting on 1 December this year and ending on 2 March 2018. The aim is that the Plan will be examined next autumn, and published just a year later. For now, the draft Plan is a material consideration in determining applications but chances are that it will carry little or no weight, at least until there is a response to consultation submissions, or after its examination.   The Mayor is using the draft Plan to deliver his manifesto commitments, according to the Plan this is justified by the scale of his election victory. As a consequence, it sometimes deviates from existing national policy and guidance, including where it reflects ‘the particular circumstances’ of London. The Mayor also says its content is supported by ‘a proportionate evidence base’.   Lichfields won’t comment on the draft Plan’s length; instead, we focus on its ‘more ambitious and focused’ content that starts to set new directions for planning London from 2019 to 2041 (with a review of its housing targets before 2029). These include delivering 65,000 homes each year (each borough’s housing targets are confirmed as published in October), achieving a zero carbon target by 2050 (including carbon free travel), and 80% of all trips in being made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041.   The first of the draft London Plan’s two new ‘pillars’ is the concept of ‘Good Growth’ – this is ‘sustainable growth that works for everyone, using London’s strengths to overcome its weaknesses’ i.e. growth that is ‘socially and economically inclusive and environmentally sustainable’. It is no longer a term just used for design. The second is the ‘Healthy Streets Approach’ that is already being taken by the Greater London Authority (GLA), which puts improving health and reducing health inequalities at the heart of planning for transport and public space.   Despite the ordering of its content into topic chapters, the draft Plan states that it has to be read as a whole, with the order of policies being ‘no reflection on their importance or weight’.   So, turning to the draft Plan’s highly detailed policy content – this straightway causes some minor difficulties as there are policies included in other paragraphs (e.g. on ‘tenure integration’), but we will ignore that for now – here are our main observations on the new stances:   Housing The threshold approach is here to stay, confirmed as per the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG. A threshold approach is now proposed for small sites as well, to trigger the ‘presumption in favour of development’ policy. The impression is that, in London at least, this approach to planning will be further extended, if it can achieve its goals. Rumours that the affordable housing threshold would be raised to 50% - or even 65% - were unfounded. The 35% affordable housing threshold (for viability purposes) will stay in place until at least 2021, while the strategic target remains set at 50%. The reference to 65% affordable housing comes from the related identified need in the London SHMA. Interestingly, boroughs may consider applying localised affordable housing thresholds (more than 35% 'where possible') in Opportunity Areas, to provide certainty and ‘help prevent land price rises based on hope value’. The fast-track application determination route, initially designed for for-sale housing schemes that provide 35% affordable housing (and meeting other requirements), will be extended to more developments, such as Built to Rent, specialist older persons’ accommodation and purpose-built accommodation (both for students and shared living). The affordable housing tenure differs according to each development’s specifics. Small sites (up to 0.25ha and capable of delivering 1-25 homes) are the main new element in the ‘increasing housing supply’ catalogue of policies. These should be included in brownfield registers, and some of them granted permission in principle, as the Mayor expects almost 25,000 homes a year to come from these sites over the next decade. A presumption in favour of residential developments will also apply in certain circumstances –including, infilling, the densification of existing schemes within PTALs 3-6 or within 800m of a Tube or rail station, or a town centre. Existing supermarket sites, surface car parks, and edge of centre retail/leisure parks with sustainable transport should deliver ‘housing intensification’ through redevelopment, with new homes above e.g. commercial uses and transport infrastructure too. Town centre policies themselves hold no great surprises. Minimum space standards in the current London Plan remain unchanged. Communal amenity space in a housing development, e.g. as in Build to Rent/ ‘compact living’ etc., is not a justification for not delivering these minimum standards. The draft Plan is not anti-basement, nor anti the permitted development right (PDR) for changes of use of offices to homes – but it does not hide GLA support for Article 4 directions to prevent both (the office to residential PDR crops up numerous times and in many contexts).   Employment The Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and Northern Isle of Dogs will ‘remain vital’ to London’s economic success, but growth elsewhere in town centres across London will be ‘equally important’. Future potential reserve locations for CAZ office functions are Stratford and Old Oak Common. Low cost business space and affordable workspaces are promoted via s106, with fleeting policy reference to viability evidence for the latter. Strategic Industrial locations and Locally Significant Industrial Sites (SILs and LSISs) can be considered for intensification/ colocation and substitution (there is a handy diagram of what this means at Figure 6.3 in the draft Plan) – this has to be plan-led. Mixed use or residential development can take place on Non-Designated Industrial Sites but again, plan-led (and with higher expectations for affordable housing).   Design Design policies seek to micro-manage the impacts of all manner of development projects, particularly tall buildings. While the development industry has said that increased densities will sometimes have to be at the expense of good design, the draft Plan states that housing density should result from a design-led approach linked to planned levels of infrastructure. The first step in delivering good design is an evaluation to identify the capacity for growth (PTAL is still a measure for referable developments). Then design analysis and visualisation are required, masterplans and design codes follow, and design scrutiny using design review is undertaken. Post-Grenfell, a Fire Statement will have to be submitted with all major development proposals.   Green infrastructure The Green Belt, local green and open spaces, green roofs, street trees will all be protected. Metropolitan Open Land is not protected in the same policy terms; the local plan process should be used to change boundaries, whereas Green Belt ‘de-designation’ will not be supported. There is a new ‘urban greening factor’ for assessing new developments.   Transport Car-free developments (housing and commercial) feature in well-connected locations in new maximum parking standards that no longer give ranges. The Mayor continues to oppose Heathrow’s expansion – unless there will be no additional noise or air quality harm. Despite concerns around uncertainty already expressed, Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL) will be charged, to secure funding towards transport infrastructure of strategic importance ‘such as Crossrail 2, and potentially other strategic transport infrastructure’.   Our first conclusion today is that the draft Plan requires some stiff editing before submission, with a lot less detail (after all, what will there be left for the supplementary planning guidance mentioned here and there in the draft Plan, that can be more ‘fleet of foot’?).   Second, the draft London Plan justifies the ‘Good Growth’ pillar as follows:   ‘Every individual decision to provide affordable housing helps to make the housing market fairer. Every decision to make a new development car-free helps Londoners to depend less on cars and to live healthier lives. Every decision to build or expand a school improves the prospects of the next generation of Londoners.’   But from the development sector’s perspective, taking this approach has been instrumental in the draft plan’s policies taking on such a phenomenal degree of micro-control.   We can see a well-thought through strategic spatial development strategy, currently buried deep within the overly complex consultation document: that strategy needs to be extracted, published and consulted on and (eventually) approved in its own right. It is that spatial strategy that should be the new strategic plan for London.   The Draft London Plan can be read here.  Further analysis of the Draft London Plan and its implications can be read here. Click here to subscribe for updates.

CONTINUE READING