Appendix 1 – Council response to Supporting Housing Delivery & Public Service Infrastructure Consultation

 No. As stated in our general introduction, we do not support the proposals for a new national permitted development right for the change of use from E class to residential. The lack of a size limit could allow undesirable changes of use of large business premises to residential. The loss of larger shops in this way could have a significant negative effect on the vitality and vibrancy of town and city centres.

The character and purpose of established urban and local centres is currently in a state of flux with covid-19 hastening a move away from a broadly retail focus towards a wider range of leisure and business uses, as reflected by the introduction of the ‘E’ use class. The government’s stated intention for the E use class is for it to allow high streets and town centres the best chance of adapting and thriving[1]. We are very concerned that the proposed Permitted Development Right could undermine this by facilitating premature and unmanaged loss of a range of commercial uses which bring footfall and clustered activities to these areas. This is a strong concern for Brighton & Hove given the city’s unique character and the diversity of uses that cluster in the city centre to support not only the local community, but the large number of visitors to the city (this is discussed further below).

This much wider-ranging PDR, particularly without a size limit, could result in large scale changes from recently vacated retail units to residential, without allowing time for a more natural evolution and repurposing of sites to other uses within class ‘E’ shaped by planning policy. The lack of a size limit will mean there is a risk of the very largest business premises in urban centres converting to residential. Buildings converted to residential are highly unlikely to revert back to class ‘E’ the end result could be pepper-potting of large residential sites within areas traditional associated with business, leisure and retail, and a hollowing out of urban centres. Re-instatement of a size limit would at the minimum allow proactive management of the evolving nature of urban centres through appropriate and justified planning policies.

We recommend retaining size limits of 150sqm for retail (use class E(a)), and 500sqm for use class E(g).

The special characteristics of these protected areas mean a full planning application is appropriate in order to full consider the effect of the proposed development. As discussed further below, the PDR should also not apply in Conservation Areas.

 No. Many Conservation Areas are very much characterised by their wide and vibrant mix of uses and this is part of their special interest and character. This can relate to the way an area was historically developed with commercial streets alongside residential streets but also office and residential buildings co-existing in neighbouring buildings or with residential accommodation above historic shops. This is very much true of many urban and town centre conservation areas, where commercial uses attract footfall and residential uses provide natural surveillance. The proposed right would inevitably lead to the balance of uses in these areas being tipped firmly towards residential use, which would harm the special historic character that we are seeking to preserve or enhance and so would conflict with our statutory duty under s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Such harm would be irreversible. The consultation does not reflect this legal duty and this is a very strong concern for us.

See answer to Q2.2. If the right is applied in conservation areas, then allowance for prior approval of the impact of the loss of ground floor use to residential is an absolutely necessary step to allow for some mitigation of the potential harmful impacts highlighted in the answer to Q2.2. In conservation areas the loss of historic and/or traditional shop fronts would be an additional, particular concern. There are also historic commercial buildings – and indeed groups or terraces of buildings - that may have been designed specifically for commercial or part-commercial use and their conversion to residential could adversely impact on those distinctive features that allow them to contribute so positively to conservation areas.

However negative impacts arising from a loss of ground floor use to residential can occur in areas outside conservation areas, for example the loss of business premises in important local parades that support more isolated communities or the loss of active frontages affecting the vibrancy of urban centres. We would therefore support an extension of this prior approval requirement to all areas with clear guidance that the prior approval of the impact of the loss of the ground floor use to residential can include consideration of the effect on the sustainability of the area as a focus for E class use..

We do not oppose the prior approval measures listed, but as set out in the answer to Q.2 above we would want to see an additional prior approval requirement relating to  the impact of the loss of the ground floor use to residential should also apply to all areas, as well as consideration of further issues as set out in Q3.2 below.

Further consideration should be given to the effect of the PDR on designated Important Local Parades so that sustainable local neighbourhoods can be protected. These often serve more isolated residential areas in towns and cities and provide important local services such as local food shopping, post office services, hairdressers and so on. The PDR will facilitate the gradual erosion of business premises in these areas and particularly in areas of high residential land values. Such parades are often outside of conservation areas; therefore without further provision as requested in Q.2.3, there will often be no ability to consider the loss of the ground floor to residential through prior approval.

The importance of such facilities being available locally has been very apparent during the period of covid-19 restrictions. If these premises are lost, there will be associated negative effects such as increasing the need for residents to travel to access local services. This could lead to undesirable increases in traffic movements and congestion, and negative effects on air quality and would be inconsistent with national and local carbon reduction targets.

A broad brush national approach to this issue does not allow for the planning process to respond to particular local circumstances. In Brighton & Hove the tourism sector is a key driver of the local economy. The character of the city centre and its associated retail and leisure industries is an important facet of the city’s tourism offer. For example, the independent shops in the Lanes and the North Laine areas are respectively the #2 and #5 rated best ‘things to do’ in Brighton on TripAdvisor[2] and attract large numbers of tourists to the city every year. The potential loss of these retail premises and hollowing out of these areas with residential properties through the PDR risks undermining their unique character and vibrancy. This could have a consequential negative effect on the city’s economy through diminished appeal to tourists.

In Brighton & Hove, a significant proportion of local medical and childcare facilities are small-scale and located in converted residential remises. Such properties are easily converted back to residential and are therefore at risk through the proposed PDR as they now fall within the ‘E’ use class. Adopted planning policies in Brighton & Hove protect such facilities unless it can be demonstrated that they are not needed, or alternative capacity can be provided elsewhere. We are concerned that significant, unplanned losses in capacity of these services could occur due to the proposed PDR.

Yes, the consideration of the prior approval application will require significant officer time, both from planning officers and other internal consultees whose input is required to assess issues such as transport impacts.

Furthermore, developments brought forward through the proposed PDR are, cumulatively, likely to result in significant additional infrastructure requirements. Considerable numbers of new residential units could potentially be delivered, leading to requirements for sustainable transport improvements; additional educational capacity; improvements to existing open space, affordable housing and so on. In order for such requirements to be identified and funded and delivered in a timely fashion, CIL contributions and S106 agreements where necessary should apply.

 
The fee should be set at a higher level, more in line with that applied to planning applications to reflect the considerable work involved in determining the prior approval application, and the reduction in income to planning departments through fewer full planning applications caused by the extension of permitted development rights.

See comments made above at Q.3.2

Communities are able to influence how the areas in which they live evolve through engagement in the local plan and development management processes. Similarly elected local members represent their communities in decision making on planning applications and development plans and are able to take an evidence-based approach to decision-making in these areas. The increasing scope of permitted development rights enlarges the democratic deficit in planning, as significant changes to the character and future evolution of areas will be able to occur with far less input from local residents and those who represent them.

 Yes for the reasons set out above. In summary we are concerned about a reduction in democratic oversight of the planning process by LPAs and communities and that the future evolution of cities will be less evidence-based and more reactive to short term market trends without proper consideration of planning issues in the round i.e. sustainable development. LPAs will be further impacted by reductions in planning application fees .

Communities are likely to be affected by the loss of local services in accessible locations (retail, medical, leisure and childcare facilities, etc). Both businesses and communities will be affected by a negative impact on the vibrancy and vitality of urban centres; the lack of affordable work space in the face of competition from high land values for residential uses. The Brighton & Hove economy has a high proportion of SME businesses, whose premises may be especially vulnerable to changes of use through the proposed PDR as they are often smaller and more easily converted to residential use.

The council has been successfully managing change of use of offices to residential since its Article 4 Direction was introduced in 2013 for certain defined areas of the city – the need for this underpinned by specific evidence commissioned regarding employment land supply in the city. There are serious concerns about the further erosion of the council’s ability to maintain a supply of needed employment land; the detrimental impact on established business/ industrial parks through the proposal and the local economy.

Monitoring figures for the period 2010/11 to 2018/19 show a net loss of 29,381m² in employment floorspace. For the five year period 2014/15 – 2018/19, the net annual development rate for employment floorspace represents an average annual net loss of 7,789m² of employment floorspace. The vast majority of loss went to residential. The city does not have a large stock of industrial sites or premises. Indeed, evidence points (Employment Land Study Review 2012 and more recently the Brighton & Hove Economic Strategy 2018-23) to a particularly tight industrial market with a perception that there is limited spare capacity. However, there is still market demand for industrial space in the city (Industrial Estates Audit December 2017 and through indications more recently from commercial agents), there is an increasing pressure on the remaining space to accommodate the City’s economic activity. The approach in the Proposed Submission City Plan is to safeguard key industrial estates and premises and manage any losses through appropriate policy that considers location, quality of premises and redundancy.

Removing the LPA’s ability to maintain a needed supply of industrial space is not considered to be sustainable and would risk harming activities which form an important part of the city’s functioning economy. This would be contrary to aspirations for the Greater Brighton City Region where a stated priority is to create attractive employment space for businesses to grow and thrive. There would be a loss of affordable workspace which is important to support spin-off, start up and smaller businesses as well as businesses that support the city’s service-based economy. Furthermore, some of the identified growth sectors the City is seeking to expand and attract (e.g. environmental technologies) through City Deal/ City Region programmes and strategies will require industrial premises.                             

The proposal would remove any incentive for landowners to invest and retain light industrial/ storage and warehousing premises in an authority where the difference in land values for residential use in Brighton & Hove against those for industrial/ storage uses is so significant. There has been no industrial floorspace delivered on planned sites since 2013.The unplanned introduction of residential uses into industrial estates will compromise the operation of these industrial areas and hinder the ability of businesses to operate successfully/ expand.

Making permanent the permitted development rights could also hinder the operation and development of waste management facilities. Many modern waste management facilities are light industrial in nature and can be appropriately located close to B1 uses, whilst retaining a ‘sui generis’ classification. However they may not be suitable for locations proximate to residential dwellings. Allowing more residential developments in areas previously in light industrial use may reduce the number of appropriate sites for the new waste management development that is required to increase rates of recycling and recovery of waste, as well as potentially causing problems for existing facilities through the closer proximity to residential properties – a land use more sensitive to impacts such as noise, odour, dust etc.                                                                                                                                                            

The proposed PDR will risk the loss of local shops, services, businesses and community facilities as set out above. A more centralised distribution may increase the distances that users are required to travel to access these uses. This reduced accessibility is likely to be particular issue for those who are less mobile. Transport costs could also impact adversely on some groups with a protected characteristic. 

Smaller business units which are often used by younger people running starter businesses may be more likely to be suitable for changes of use to residential, thus disproportionately effecting this age group.

No. We consider that the proposal would further erode the local democratic planning process. It would allow significantly sized buildings to fall within the scope of permitted development. Many schools and hospitals in Brighton & Hove are located in already densely developed areas with residential development in close proximity to the boundary. It is important that full consideration is given to the range of impacts of development of this scale.

No. See answer to Q. 7.1 above. An incremental increase from 5m to 6m, combined with the proposals to allow a larger footprint of building, the additional bulk could significantly adversely impact on neighbouring properties. There is no evidence to indicate that this proposed increase is justified.

We are not aware of any evidence to support an increase above six metres and we do not support such an increase. 

No comment as no prisons are located within Brighton & Hove; however the concerns as set out above are likely to apply to prisons too. 

 Yes, the proposed amendments will further diminish the ability of local communities and LPAs to provide democratic oversight of the planning process

 No comment as no prisons are located within Brighton & Hove.

 No comment as no prisons are located within Brighton & Hove.

 If the new application process is brought in, then we support excluding developments that are subject to EIA. These developments are likely to be particularly large and extra time in the determination process is appropriate to allow for full consideration of the range of impacts that are likely to result.

 For the reasons given in the answers to questions 7.1, 7.2 and 9.1 we do not support the modified process. The benefits of a marginally expedited process do not outweigh the negatives.

No. This would place further pressure on planning departments and other council departments who are consulted on applications which are already under-resourced. Developments falling into this category could be of a significant size and consequently have a range of potential impacts which need careful and professional consideration in the determination process. A number of external bodies and council departments are likely to be consulted and the decision-making process is reliant on these consultation responses for which an adequate amount of time is necessary.

It should be noted that delays in the determination of applications are often caused by applicants failing to provide required information and clarifications in a timely manner.

 No, fourteen days is an inappropriately short period of time and is unrealistic. As stated in the consultation document it is important that local communities are able to express their views and have an opportunity to do so. The chance of interested parties being unaware of the consultation process is significantly increased by the proposed changes, for example a family may take a two-week holiday over the period the consultation takes place and miss the opportunity to make their views known.

We recognise that it is important for decision-making to occur in a timely fashion, but the benefits of expediting the process by a single week in this way are very small and we do not consider they offset the potential negative consequences caused by an inadequate amount of time for scrutiny of proposals.

 No. We consider that this adds a further unnecessary level of bureaucracy to the planning process. In the interests of transparency full details of key dates in the determination process for all planning applications are already made publicly available on the council’s website, including the date applications are received, validated and advertised, consultation dates and the determination deadline,

 Yes, we recognise the importance of constructive and effective pre-application discussions and already engage with applicants in this manner.

 The opportunity to make comments is likely to be impacted alongside other parts of the community.

Yes, it makes sense to consolidate and simplify the existing permitting development rights in order to make the rights clearer and more coherent. 

If retail shops are permitted to change to any use within class ‘E’ then it is logical for betting shops and payday loan shops to also benefit from this right as they are usually located within retail style premises. 

 We caution against increases in the size limits of PDRs solely in the name of flexibility and simplification. Full consideration should be given to the potential consequences of such alterations such as those discussed in detail above.