Our planning system (not development rights) reinforces poverty and supports the wealthy over the poor

 With the government announcing a further relaxation of planning controls (or an 'extension of permitted development rights' as it is usually described) there has been the entirely expected outcry from a host of organisations. Bodies representing councils, planners, architects and even the always reliable NIMBY lobby have leapt to the defence of people not having rights to develop their property.

The decision to end the need for a planning permission to extend homes upwards, to replace redundant commercial or industrial property with housing, and to convert empty retail premises to homes has been variously described as "disgraceful" (RIBA) and "a serious error" (RTPI). Alan Jones the president of RIBA even went as far as to exonerate the planning system of any failings:

“There is no evidence that the planning system is to blame for the shortage of housing, and plenty to suggest that leaving local communities powerless in the face of developers seeking short-term returns will lead to poor results.”

This opposition to planning liberalisation (hardly surprising from a set of people so invested - financially and intellectually - in the existing systems) has been given a little fuel by the publication of a report commissioned by the government and undertaken by the planning departments of UCL and Liverpool University. Of course, it's worth stressing the words 'planning department' here when considering how to read the report but it does criticise some of the impact from the previous liberalisation of development rights, usually dubbed "office-resi". This report, we're told by fans of a more intrusive planning system, explains how extended permitted develoment rights (PDRs) resulted in substandard housing, a new generation of slums.

Interestingly the actual report stresses that the situation is "more nuanced" than shown by "some previous research" and "newspaper reports". The authors conclude, having visted 639 schemes under new PDRs and previous change of use planning permissions, that in terms of exterior design, amenity provision (parking, open space, etc), links to transport and deprivation levels there wasn't much difference between developments under the two planning regimes:

Looking across all categories of change of use and all 11 local authority areas considered, rates of making exterior alterations, such as new windows, doors, balconies and cladding, are broadly similar between planning permission and PD schemes. In terms of noticeable additional amenities, such as provision of parking and open space and facilities for refuse and post there are no obvious differences between planning permission and PD consented schemes overall. There was also little difference between PD and planning permission units in terms of energy performance or council tax banding (and hence potential property value). In terms of access to services, transport and green space, and in terms of general level of deprivation within a neighbourhood, there is overall little difference between PD and planning permission schemes.

The only substantive difference lies in 'space standards' - put simply, developments under relaxed PDRs delivered significantly smaller homes. There's a clue in the report as to why this might be the case when they observe that "...there is still significant variation between the percentages meeting the standard between each LPA." Local market conditions are as much to do with the development of homes with reduced space standards as the extension of PDRs (although the latter has made this easier).

I have quite a lot of sympathy with those arguing that these developments amount to a new generation of slums (although I would go further and argue that this applies also to developments that go through a full planning process) but the reason for this is to do with land supply not the planning permission system (plus, to a more limited extent, the impact of changes to the benefits system in respect of single people under 35). In and of itself the lack of planning 'controls' doesn't automatically result in this sort of development - indeed this is what seems to be the case in the study.

The two factors that are more important that the PDR regime (with the location determining which is more significant) are: (1) the continued lack of land supply for new housing as a result of the local plan system, green belt and other constraints; and (2) the benefit regime for those under 35 that sets a cap at the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) shared accomodation rate.

Taking the benefit effect first, we can see how this contributes to hidden homelessness (sofa surfing, lodging, etc) and street homelessness. There is too little available to rent at or near the LHA shared accomodation rate. In many places this will be confounded by young people in work who also cannot find affordable accomodation so remain as de facto 'hidden households'. The reason why places like Bradford city centre have been popular for those seeking to meet this need is that they have a surplus of poor quality office accomodation, very low yields on commercial property, and a collapsed housing market. While provision under relaxed PDRs doesn't resolve the difficulties that this local environment might create (crime, drug abuse, street drinking, deprivation and poverty) is does meet an otherwise unmet need - one that the existing planning system has struggled to meet.

The impact of too little land supply is, however, the primary contributor to our housing crises. This isn't to say that other factors (job insecurity, finance availability, market velocity) aren't also important but that five decades or more undersupply of land meant too few homes being built, higher house prices and the emergence of an often problematic private rental sector. Bear in mind that the choice for a potential tenant of a sub-standard bedsit built under relaxed PDRs isn't a lovely spacious flat but an equally sub-standard bedsit in a converted four-bed semi (and remember that most small HMO conversions are allowable under existing PDRs).

Where these structural elements are absent from the housing market then the relaxing of PDRs would create far fewer problems. It is notable that the UCL/Liverpool report shows developments in wealthier areas like Richmond and Waverley are more compliant with space and quality standards perhaps because the flats are either for market housing or else that they are meeting a wealthier part of these areas' unmet housing need. The problem isn't the regulations - and when the head of RIBA thinks there's no evidence showing the planning system contributes to housing shortages, we really do have a problem - the problem is the general lack of housing supply either as a consequence of other government regulation (eg the housing benefits system) or else as a result of local government severely constraining the land available for development.

The right criticism of the government shouldn't be to defend a planning system that has prevented us meeting housing need but rather to argue that liberalising PDRs should be done in the context of liberalising land supply. Small, poor quality housing is the inevitable consequence of our current system. We see it in how HMOs are squeezing out family housing in inner suburban London. We see it in the extent of flat-sharing, sofa surfing and temporary accommodation. And we see it in the problem of illegal lets and the abuse of sub-letting.

All of these problems either exist because of, or are made worse by, the chronic shortage of housing and the planning system's inability to meet that need. The voices at the LGA and among the assorted planning vested interests attacking the government's efforts to meet need are doing so by defending a planning system that actively prevents the provision of homes and the meeting of housing need. If these organisations were arguing that it's foolish to liberalise PDRs without green belt reform and having a vastly increased land supply, then they might have a point. Instead they're arguing for the status quo - a current system that damages economic growth, fails to respond to need, protects the environment poorly and, above all, reinforces squalour and poverty by supporting the interests of the wealthy over the interests of the poor.

.....