Research into the quality standard of homes delivered through change of use permitted development rights

Overview of the Research Initiative

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) commissioned a comprehensive study to assess the quality standards of homes created through change‑of‑use permitted development rights (PDR). Conducted by a multidisciplinary team of academics from UCL, the University of Liverpool, and the Bartlett School of Planning, the research was published in July 2020 and is publicly available under the Open Government Licence.

Scope and Methodology

The investigation covered 11 English local planning authorities (LPAs) – Bristol, Crawley, Derby, Enfield, Huntingdonshire, Manchester, Richmond, Sandwell, Sunderland, Wakefield and Waverley – representing a mix of urban, suburban and rural contexts. Researchers combined three data streams: (1) analysis of planning applications and prior approvals (652 PDR notifications vs 371 full planning applications), (2) site visits to 639 schemes (417 PDR, 222 planning permission), and (3) detailed desk‑based reviews of 240 schemes (138 PDR, 102 planning permission). The study examined 3 156 residential units, assessing space standards, natural light, amenity provision, energy performance, council tax bands and locational attributes.

Key Findings on Space Standards

Only 22 % of units created through PDR met the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS), compared with 73 % of units approved via full planning permission. Studio flats dominated PDR outputs (41 % of PDR units) and were often well below the 37 m² minimum. In contrast, planning‑permission units showed a higher proportion of two‑bedroom flats and larger average sizes (29 m² vs 53 m² for the smallest PDR units). The disparity was most pronounced in office‑to‑residential conversions, where 77 % of PDR units fell short of NDSS.

Natural Light and Window Configuration

A substantial 72 % of PDR units had single‑aspect windows, limiting daylight and ventilation, whereas only 30 % of planning‑permission units exhibited this trait. Dual or triple‑aspect windows were present in 67 % of planning‑permission units but only 27 % of PDR units. Ten PDR units (0.4 %) lacked any windows at all, a condition not observed in planning‑permission schemes.

Amenity Space and Outdoor Access

Private amenity space was provided in just 3.5 % of PDR units, compared with 23 % for planning‑permission units. Communal amenity provision followed a similar pattern (15 % vs 23 %). The lack of outdoor space was especially evident in office‑to‑residential conversions, which also showed the highest share of units located in commercial or industrial zones (7.9 % of PDR schemes vs 1 % of planning‑permission schemes).

Energy Performance and Value Indicators

Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings clustered around C and D for both routes, with no A‑rated units among PDR schemes. Council‑tax band distribution was broadly similar, though a slightly higher share of planning‑permission units fell into the highest bands (E‑H). Approximately 47 % of PDR units and 46 % of planning‑permission units entered the market for sale; the remainder were let, with a marginally higher proportion of private‑rented stock in PDR schemes (21 % vs 18 %).

Socio‑Economic Context and Market Influence

The study identified correlations between lower PDR quality and areas of higher deprivation, lower house‑price levels and weaker office markets. LPAs with higher average house prices (e.g., Richmond) exhibited higher compliance rates for both routes, while authorities with lower prices and higher unemployment (e.g., Derby, Sunderland) showed the poorest NDSS compliance for PDR units. Larger PDR schemes tended to deliver more units but with smaller average sizes, reinforcing the trade‑off between quantity and quality.

Planning Policy and Regulatory Insights

Only 32.6 % of PDR schemes required an associated planning permission for external works, indicating that many conversions proceeded without detailed design scrutiny. Approval rates were higher for PDR (83 %) than for full planning applications (73 %). However, the lack of statutory power to impose space‑standard or amenity requirements under PDR limits LPA ability to ensure residential quality. Interviewed planners expressed concerns about the cumulative impact of low‑quality conversions on housing wellbeing, especially in urban centres.

Implications for Sustainable Housing in Europe

The findings underscore that while permitted development rights can accelerate housing supply, they often do so at the expense of internal spatial quality, natural light and amenity provision—key determinants of sustainable, healthy living environments. For pan‑European policymakers and housing stakeholders, the research highlights the need for coordinated standards (e.g., mandatory adherence to NDSS or equivalent) and stronger LPA tools to balance speed of delivery with long‑term sustainability outcomes. Aligning PDR frameworks with broader EU housing quality directives could help ensure that rapid conversion schemes contribute positively to the continent’s sustainable housing goals.