Permitted Development Rights (Extension) Bill [HL]

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.