The Folly of Prior-approval and Developers Greed

Listeners to  local radio in  London  may be familiar with recent adverts for Galliard Homes promoting a new development at Waltham Cross called 'King Edward House'. With property prices spiraling out of control for all but the very rich, the advert describes a development seemingly perfect for young first time buyers. 

So i naturally thought i would check it out. The picture on the Galliard Homes website looks like this.

Which to me looks like a office building with some colouful balconies tacked on. 

Ah yes, its this building.

Suspicious that the scheme was permitted under the recent changes to permitted development legislation, allowing change of use from class B1 (offices) to C3 (Residential) i decided to check out the application and came across this refreshing, honest and shocking critique of the scheme within the decision notice. 

Hmmm

And my concerns sadly don't end there, The development sits just outside of the area under the control of the Greater London authority and the space standards which govern new accommodation within the city. A quick look at the size of new units presents a worrying picture.

Lets first look at the London plan space standards.

And now the size of the units within this development

Studio,   31sqm

1b,         35sqm

2b          48sqm

This scheme in all its lack of glory illustrates the folly of the prior-approval process, not only does Waltham Cross lose valuable office space, something vital in the creation of mixed use sustainable communities, it gains a apartment block described by its own planning as 'likely resulting in  a poor standard of accommodation', and with 2 bed units smaller than the minimum size for a 1 bed unit in the London plan, you don't get too much for your money either. The long term result of such a approach to planning is worrying. 

But at least its providing cheap accomodation right?

Yes only £245,000 for a small single aspect 2 bed apartment in a former office building overlooking a very busy road in zone 7.

Bargain.

Protecting the Crown

The new permitted development rights which come into full force today (30th May 2013) represents one of the most ill-thought policies yet from a coalition government rapidly slimming down the planning system.

One of the most worrying and controversial aspects of the scheme is the right for the conversion from class B1(a) to C3 use without the requirement for planning permission. At the start of May the government released a list of areas who were successful in lobbying for an exemption. 

The full list  is an odd mix and raises questions over the process used to determine the successful areas; especially when one notes that Sevenoaks which have somehow managed to give special protection to the Crown Inn at Westerham is the seat of the business minister Michael Fallon. 

While it is undisputed that certain boroughs, particularly in London, must protect their office stock in order to attract investment and businesses it is concerning that not enough protection is given to the valuable office sock in the regional cities (with the exception of Manchester) or rural districts outside of the south east of England; The area precisely where more homes are needed.

Cutting the supply of office accommodation in key regional centres stands to force up the prices of the existing office stock which will only make it more difficult for small and young businesses to find suitable premises; stifling both innovation and  entrepreneurial-ship outside of the capital. Two qualities we should be encouraging as the country staggers out of recession.

The policy will be to the long term detriment to regional economic growth.

The need to obtain planning permission does not prevent such changes were they are appropriate indeed in practice I have succeeded in releasing land from B1 use in a central London borough with little fuss. The advantage of the planning process is that it allows the local community and the relevant local authority to consider the impacts of the change on the locality and on the economy.

The government promised to give communities a greater voice via its localism agenda, this policy prevents this voice being heard.