(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the Government are bringing forward some excellent proposals to get us more housing, which we really need. I am in favour of a focus on new estates, new towns and building out near railway stations, and I very much hope that we will see those ambitions realised soon. However, today I will focus on the promotion of gentle density, connectivity and community within existing towns as a way of contributing to dealing with the housing shortage.
A good deal of housing in existing settlements is low density and in developments that were put together in the belief that everyone would go everywhere by car, because the car was the future. There is a lot to gain in our current world from allowing such settlements to become denser.
Shops, schools, doctor’s surgeries, pubs and community centres all require a minimum number of users to flourish. If those users are within a small enough range, those facilities can be accessed on foot or by public transport. If they are more spread out, you get a community which is entirely dependent on the car, which is quite isolating: you go from one place to another without interacting in between; it is not a great builder of communities. Also, if we are densifying a town, we are generally talking about employing small builders who get cut out of the bigger developments by the well-organised big housebuilders. However, if you are working within a town in complicated little ways, that space is ideally suited to helping our smaller building firms flourish.
It is natural for people living in a house to want to enlarge it. People want to stay in an area for the jobs, schools, family and community to which they are connected. They could move, but then they would have stamp duty and moving costs—always things to want to avoid—and, anyway, there may not be a house available to which they would like to move. Extending is good for us all, because if we all extend our houses, we will need to build fewer houses. Adding a bedroom so an adult child can stay at home rather than sharing a two-bedroom flat, reduces the need for new housing by half a house. Extending can also help young people to get on the housing ladder, because they can live at home for longer and save for a deposit. That is especially important in London and the south-east, but increasingly important everywhere. If people can afford to make their house larger and would find that a desirable thing to do, why would we prefer them to go on an expensive, long-haul holiday abroad, rather than employing people here and creating an asset for themselves and for the nation as a whole?
How do we do this? This Bill takes a shy at that. Given that we are expecting a government planning Bill, I will not try to focus on perfection or on improving what is already in my Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has raised some very cogent objections to it, but since I shall not push to take my Bill any further, I hope rather that these points will help inform the Government’s own deliberations as to what to put in their Bill.
The Bill seeks to make best and optimal use of land, and to minimise the circumstances in which a capricious or arbitrary refusal of densification can be made. It builds on existing planning arrangements, expanding the presumption in favour. However, it intends to have safeguards to prevent the destruction of the street scene where there are design codes or where change would create visual disharmony; to avoid overdevelopment; and to respect conservation imperatives. There will be rules to be obeyed under this Bill, but not rules that are silly or hard to comply with; I want to see us build quality and beauty, but to get on and build.
The Bill allows for the preservation of private rights, but also provides help in navigating them. If we are to rely on people doing more of their own development, we must help them navigate this tortuous area of competing private rights and property, and it would be an easy thing for a well set-up planning authority to be helpful with.
I have also suggested that we should put our foot forward more in building in flood zones. A lot of our existing communities are flood liable, but if we are to allow people to expand their houses, we can reasonably say that they must make them flood-proof, so that we get some of our flood prevention done as a result of allowing people to extend.
Beyond that, I would like to see it made much easier for people to make use of roof spaces; to have full-height extensions to the side and rear to make a house larger; to be able to put a single-storey extension in the garden; to put extra floors on bungalows; and, within the centres of towns, to go up to four storeys without question.
Good communities on the continent, in places such as Holland and Belgium, are dense, but it is a very comfortable, community-orientated, good-to-live-in density. That is where I would like to see us being allowed to head. In addition, I propose that we should make it easier for householders to make their own contributions towards net zero. It should be easier to put in heat pumps and solar heating or electricity. We know that we want to do it. It is an efficient process when it is done at the individual house level, because you connect the source of power and its user intimately, without needing a lot of infrastructure beyond that.
This is not an easy area to get right. There are many contending issues. I very much look forward to the Government’s planning Bill and hope that they will prove more adventurous and better at drafting than I have been. I hope to see a system that will give real impetus to the process of densification. I would like to see planning authorities with clarity of rules, speed of action and maybe some cumulative economic test. Yes, there are lots of conditions that planning authorities may impose but if, together, their costs make a change uneconomic, it has gone too far. The planning authority must choose what it wants to add as a requirement. It cannot just go overboard and throw everything in. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my attention was attracted to this Bill on the basis of a friend who bought a home and has been doing it up with his wife. They were planning a loft conversion, and to have sufficient height to be able to stand up properly in the loft, they wanted to put a few extra layers of bricks—possibly less than the height of the Woolsack. Yet it seemed that extensive planning permission was needed, a number of surveys, and so on and so forth—such that a lot of the associated costs would have ended up being more than doing the construction to enable a greater use of their home.
Therefore, I was intrigued by the Bill from my noble friend Lord Lucas, especially when I saw the schedule to which he refers. It seems very sensible, in particular in recognising that Clause 3 gives sufficient protection to neighbours from perhaps undesirable impacts that can happen with permitted development rights, such as the blocking of light.
However, I was somewhat concerned when I started reading Clause 2. What seemed to be quite a permissive Bill suddenly started giving powers to councils to be able to add lots of conditions to what were supposed to be permitted development rights. I understand that the sentiment is to see how we can improve the quality of our housing stock in terms of energy and other environmental aspects. However, it seemed to somewhat counter the proposal of having permitted development rights. I declare an interest as the owner of a house that is grade 2 listed. I was concerned that Clause 1 would not apply to listed homes. There has been a significant increase in the number of homes declared as listed. Also, 38% of our home stock was built pre 1945 and 20% pre 1919. That is over 5 million homes in England alone.
One of the things that concern me, although I completely understand that we cannot change the basis of a house that has been listed, is aspects that cannot be seen, where we might want to make it easier to add a bit of utility space in one way or another. Indeed, as my noble friend points out in paragraph 1(h)(i) and (iii) of the Schedule, given that we need to try to make it as easy as possible to convert to things such as air source heat pumps or electric vehicle charging, we should try to make these permitted development rights for listed buildings as well, rather than put a barrier in the way.
I know that the Government have just put out a consultation on EPC C for all homes for rent. When I was Secretary State for Defra I was successful in limiting some of the proposals put out in our Government’s time. Although of course I support improvement in energy performance for all our homes, which will lead to cheaper energy bills and the like, my concern is that the cost of changing EPC ratings in so many rural areas would mean a reduction in the amount of housing stock available right around the country. I could see that where I live in Suffolk and in other parts of the country, where this came up as a big concern. I hope it is something of which the Government will be mindful when they consider these different rights or restrictions.
Clause 4 is on floods. Building greater flood resilience into houses is a good thing. I gently point out to noble Lords that zones 2 and 3 apply only to fluvial flooding. Actually, the major risk nowadays to most houses, particularly in towns, is from surface water flooding, which is not connected to the flood zones referred to in the Bill. Again, there already are conditions to stop things such as the hard pavementing of drives and similar to stop the run-off. That would need some greater focus.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for explaining the inclusion of public transport in Clause 4. I was somewhat curious about that, but I think he was, in effect, advocating the development of 15-minute cities, and this is a way to try to achieve that. He is right that we need to stimulate economic activity.
If my noble friend were to take his Bill forward, I would go even further and consider seeing what we could do to have a permitted development right for any building—it does not matter whether it is listed—to make it much easier for houses to be adapted for the benefit of people with disability, or for older people, so that they could stay in their home. My mother passed away a few months ago and, when we were considering some potential changes to her house, I was quite struck by the number of extraordinary planning applications that we would have to go through. In the end, it did not seem worth the hassle. I am mindful that, when we look at permitted development rights, we need to make sure we have things that really open up opportunities for people to live in their homes for as long as possible.
In terms of other consideration of permitted development rights, I encourage my noble friend to go further—although his speech focused particularly on urban development—to explore what could be done to help rural communities and our farmers. There is such a ripe opportunity to develop things such as small reservoirs, which would enhance not only food production but our natural environment.
It sounds as if my noble friend will not take this Bill forward, but I hope that when we get the opportunity to look at planning and infrastructure we think strategically and holistically. Too often, building regulations end up getting into minutiae that seem counterproductive once they are put into effect. I would have supported the Bill going through its Second Reading, but I look forward to future debates on this important matter.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing the Bill to the House today. I declare my interests in the register, particularly that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.
There is a housing crisis in this country, particularly in London and the south-east. For example, we see huge numbers of homelessness, particularly in London, with nearly 70,000 families in temporary accommodation, of whom nearly half are placed out of borough. Although the last Government successfully built some 2.5 million homes between 2010 and 2024 and a million in the last Parliament, it is noticeable that London has consistently failed to deliver on its housing targets over recent years. Depending on which housing target is looked at, since 2016 London’s delivery shortfall is between 100,000 and 400,000 homes. Had these homes been delivered, we would most likely have seen a material improvement in the housing crisis in London and the south-east, with fewer families in temporary accommodation and lower rents and improved economic growth.
Getting more housing built will come not from a single silver-bullet solution but rather a series of incremental steps. Increasing densification and enabling householders to expand existing properties, particularly in urban areas, could make a meaningful contribution to this, with the added benefits of densification, which my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned, and the 15-minute city, which my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned. Building in urban areas will avoid the use of greenfield and the loss of farmland. It has the benefit of using existing infrastructure—particularly, again, in London, where there is capacity in both the school and transport systems—and home owners needing extra space could do so without the disruption and difficulty of moving, enabling growing families to remain in their homes and communities.
I believe that there is a role for making modest extensions that do not interfere unduly with neighbouring properties and that are easier to get through the planning system. Also, as we seek to improve the energy efficiency of our homes, we could simplify the process for solar, heat pumps and charging points. Like my noble friend Lady Coffey, I raise the conflict between the requirement for energy efficiency for housing from housing associations, and potentially for rental homes, and the planning restrictions on listed properties and those in conservation zones, for instance.
However, we must also consider the potential serious impact on neighbours. It is easy to imagine how a six-metre extension to a terraced home could materially impact its neighbours. I also need to be consistent with my previous work in this area. As a councillor, I worked with colleagues in local government, when householder permitted development was previously extended, to ensure that a light-touch prior approval regime was set up so that this did not unduly impact neighbours. I continue to support this for some of the larger householder permitted developments.
We also need to look at the building control regime. If we are to make the planning process easier, we become more reliant on building control to enforce quality development. Building control does not cover all aspects —the classic cases being spaces for bins and parking—so there will need to be a review of building control.
I believe that there is scope to look at householder permitted development, particularly in urban areas, as a step to addressing the UK’s housing crisis, but this must be balanced with the impact on neighbours and the wider community. The Bill makes some helpful proposals to deliver more accommodation in our much-pressed housing market, but it will need further work on the details to avoid unintended consequences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing this very important issue before the House again, and for his work on his Bill. I give my personal welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey; it is great to be working with her.
We absolutely support the right of householders to adapt their homes to meet their needs, and we understand the wish to continue to speed up the process. The points on the density of our urban areas made by the noble Lord, Lords Lucas and Lord Jamieson, are well made. Noble Lords will be aware of both the Government’s intention to promote brownfield sites, through the use of brownfield passports, and our support for SME builders; it is my intention that we will do as much as we can in that regard. But we believe that there are other routes to achieve the aims set out in the Bill, so the Government have some reservations, which I will endeavour to set out.
Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission granted by the Secretary of State. They play an important role in the planning system by taking certain development out of the standard planning application process and freeing up local planning authority resources. This is an important step in the freeing up and speeding up of the planning process for those major applications that we all want to see.
In England, under the existing householder permitted development rights, as set out in the general permitted development order, home owners are able to extend, alter and make certain improvements to their homes. Those rights strike a balance between protecting local amenity and allowing individuals the freedom to carry out development. They ensure that there is flexibility for householders and growing families so that they can alter and extend their homes.
The rights are therefore subject to certain conditions and limitations to minimise their impacts and are designed to safeguard against the kind of inappropriate development mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In addition, for larger rear extensions there is a neighbourhood notification scheme, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, which means that consideration can be given by the local authority as to whether or not the impact on amenity of any adjoining premises is acceptable before giving approval to proceed. In a similar way, proposals to add additional storeys to homes under the rights are subject to prior approval.
These long-standing rights are well established, with home owners, developers and local authorities clear about what types of development are covered by the rights. We want to ensure that the permitted development rights are flexible enough to accommodate different living styles and maximise the number of households that can make use of those rights. When changes are made to permitted development rights, they are done so through amendments to the relevant secondary legislation, in this case the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended. This means that primary legislation is not required for changes to householder permitted development rights.
Prior to any secondary legislative amendments there is normally a period of public consultation on the proposals. That ensures that the views of people who will be most affected by any of the changes can be taken into account and that suitable mitigations can be put in place.
The Bill appears to seek to replicate some of the existing householder permitted development rights as set out in the general permitted development order in England. It would introduce a free-standing and separate regime for householder permitted development rights without reference to, or connection with, current permitted development rights in the general permitted development order. Whether or not the new rights proposed are meant to sit alongside or replace existing permitted development rights is unclear. However, the Bill’s proposed permitted development rights, as provided by primary legislation, would prevail over the current rights, under secondary legislation, resulting in inconsistency. That would create uncertainty and confusion for users of the system, directly impacting both home owners and local authorities.
The Bill appears to seek to introduce new national permitted development rights in primary legislation that could otherwise be delivered in secondary legislation. We feel that would be a disproportionate use of primary powers. It would mean that there would not be a period of public consultation on the measures, which is a valuable step in the design of new permitted development rights, risking adverse impacts on amenity of neighbours without the in-depth assessment that consultation provides.
I will respond to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on the issue of roof heights. The National Planning Policy Framework has recently been updated to make it clear that planning policies and decisions should support opportunities to use the air space above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes. In particular, they should allow upward extensions, including mansard roofs—I know that that is a lovely topic of conversation in your Lordships’ House—where the development would be consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, as long as they are well designed, including complying with local design policies and standards, and can maintain safe access and egress for occupiers. I hope that that is helpful.
In February 2024, the previous Government issued a consultation on changes to certain permitted development rights, including householder rights. The consultation sought views on allowing householders to erect larger extensions and loft extensions, and on providing flexibilities to permit bin and bike stores in front gardens.
Issues around building in flood-sensitive areas, on net zero, those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and those related to listed buildings and flood-sensitive areas, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will be considered as we go forward. Following the analysis of consultation, we will consider whether to bring forward any amendments to the rights.
In relation EPC listings, which the noble Baroness raised, we have issued a consultation on this matter and are taking views on it but it is vital, in particular to those in private rented accommodation, that we are able to tackle fuel poverty and make sure that they have an assurance of fuel efficiency. On rural development, we have coming forward in the spring a housing strategy and a new planning and infrastructure Bill, both of which are likely to contain issues around development in rural areas.
Any future changes to the permitted development regime would be introduced through amendments to the general permitted development order made by secondary legislation. We will, therefore, continue to keep permitted development rights under review. Although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for highlighting this important issue, I hope that I have explained the Government’s reservations about this way of approaching householder permitted development rights.
I realise that I have not commented on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about housebuilding in London. I have responded to him in writing. The Government have set fairly challenging targets for London housing in the new housing targets that we have set. I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising this very important issue and for his contribution to the discussion on permitted development rights.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have spoken, in particular my noble friend Lady Coffey. It is nice to have some support from somewhere other than the Front Benches. She raised some important matters around what kind of flooding we have to deal with, adaptation for disability and, indeed, the importance of small reservoirs. Letting people do individual things, to make individual benefits to contribute to the whole, is really the substance of this Bill.
Let us not have to do everything in big lumps. Let us solve the problem by everyone doing their bit. Allowing more people to do their bit is the burden of what I have put forward in this Bill. I accept the criticism from the Government that it would be better done through secondary legislation and through being consulted on. I very much hope that this is a direction that the Government will feel inclined to take in due course, and I very much look forward to the Government’s Bills when they come through.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.