We must keep fighting the battle over PDR

It would have been naïve to assume that, having been forced to confront the findings of the independent report on the outcomes of office-to-residential permitted development rights, the government would have thrown up its hands and admitted that it had all been an error of judgment. But it was remarkably clumsy to announce new PDRs on the very day that the damning report was published.

That was back in July. The report did elicit a commitment to require all habitable rooms achieved through PDR to have a window and daylight; something that the vast majority of people would assume we could take for granted – and until PDR took off, we could. Months later it is still not clear how much daylight is required, whether it can be from a rooflight or borrowed from another room, and whether it needs to be openable.

These may sound like trivial details but, if it is your home, and particularly if it is your only source of daylight, it really matters. Who knows how planners will decide to address these gaps – and how much more sensible to have taken daylight requirements into Building Regulations where they can be defined and applied to all new homes.

Welcome though it was, the ruling about windows suggested that the case for space had failed. If the government had intended to impose the NDSS, it surely would have announced it on the same day.

There has been no apology for introducing a policy that has produced so much new, poor-quality housing

Two months later, fearing a damaging defeat in a debate about PDR brought by Labour, astatement confirming that the NDSS would be applied to all new homes achieved by all forms of PDR让所有人都大吃一惊。当然，这也很受欢迎，但这种180度大转弯的愤世嫉俗和最后一刻的性质表明，这更多是为了避免羞辱，而不是纠正错误。

There has been no apology for introducing a policy that has produced so much new, poor-quality housing, and no apology either to the thousands of people who are now living in homes that the government has been forced to concede are not acceptable after all.

虽然我们倾向于认为PDR公寓是出租的，但相当大的比例(我相信高达三分之一)已经售出。我担心现在的房主可能会发现很难卖掉他们的单间公寓，因为他们再也无法面对住在一个房间里，做饭，睡觉，在很多情况下，还有工作。

The risk of negative equity feels very real and my advice to anyone contemplating buying a flat of less than 37sq m is to ask their solicitor to get assurance from the vendor that the dwelling is fit for human habitation and free of hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).

想租房的人也应该问房东同样的问题。It is nerdy stuff but new worked examples in the guidance that supports the HHSRS have found a studio of 16.6sq m to be so dangerous that a local authority would be required to serve an immediate enforcement notice, and a studio of 28.28sq mdangerous enough to give the council the right to serve a notice.

Prospective buyers should also take a careful look at the external condition of the building. External changes are not permitted under this form of PDR so anything more than 30 years old may soon need new cladding and/or windows. The cost will inevitably be borne by the leaseholders. Agreen retrofitalso looms, of course.

最新的官方数据显示，从办公室到resi的PDR审批大幅放缓。其中大部分可能是与新冠肺炎相关的破坏，但在此基础上实施的NDSS(除非这一切都是一个骗局，否则将在愚人节生效)将对负责最小公寓的开发商产生重大影响，尤其是那些一直针对领取住房福利的人的开发商。

Their business model has been predicated on rents payable under the Local Housing Allowance. For any new development approved after April, they will receive the same rent for a single person flat/studio of 37sq m as they currently receive for one of 13sq m – effectively a third of the dwellings and therefore a third of the revenue.

一些人可能会完全退出市场，但随着工作模式的改变，越来越多的写字楼进入市场，价格肯定会下降。从气候变化的角度来看，这些建筑的重新用途至关重要，除非它们真的不值得保存。

The PDR that permits demolition and new-build therefore poses a serious dilemma – a new, purpose-built, residential development ought to yield better-quality housing, but only at the expense of embodied carbon – something that isnot yet on the government or the development industry’s radar.

同时，计划推出更多形式的PDR。显然，我们没有被PDR到目前为止还没有被证明是受欢迎的或有启发的普遍感觉所吓住，我们被邀请来表达我们关于全面改变典型商业街用途的观点，鉴于在线购物和酒店部门的伤亡。

>> Also read:一个rchitect calls for embodied carbon targets to be enshrined in planning policy

>> Also read:一个rchitects warn of ‘disastrous’ consequences as government allows entire high streets to become housing

In principle, we must support this too, but only when all opportunities for community uses have been exhausted, and only then when we are confident that these buildings and their immediate environments will make good places to live. The consultation offers “newhousing opportunities including for those who will benefit from close proximity to services, such as the elderly and those living with disabilities…” Well maybe, but with all the incentives directed towards residential, rather than community uses, the high street won’t have much left to offer anyone.

Change is inevitable but why always PDR, and always in a hurry?

Reading the small print, it also seems that, subject to prior approval, these new rights will apply in conservation areas too – something not seen before.

Change is inevitable but why always PDR, and always in a hurry? It is lazy, cynical and smacks of desperation and a lack of ambition.

It is hard to imagine that the re-purposing of high streets and town centres will ever be reversed so these decisions cannot be taken lightly. The proposals promise to cut some local consultation periods from 21 days to 14. What difference does a week make in the overall scheme of things?

Given the long-term impact that so many of these half-baked ideas will have, local authorities surely deserve time to plan for an orchestrated shrinkage of town centres and high streets, incentivised by favourable business rates for non-residential uses – and we deserve a planning process that upholds local democracy.

Have a look at the consultation and respond if you can. A quick tip: if you are short of time (and who isn’t these days), the right answer to most of the questions that begin with the words, “Do you agree…” is, “No”.