Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee Clive Betts gives thought to changes to planning rules for homeowners.
A year has passed since Eric Pickles announced a relaxation of planning rules for homeowners. In that time his controversial plans have been out to consultation, criticised and changed. His original proposal – doubling the size limits on the depth of certain single-storey extensions to houses in non-protected areas for three years – will go ahead. But as a result of considerable concern among the public and from MPs on both sides of the House, councils will now be able to review proposed extensions if an adjoining neighbour objects.
But, the rationale and impact of the changes leave many questions unanswered. Will the government’s local consultation scheme pit neighbour against neighbour – while ignoring the wider community and the environment? Will planning departments have the resources to deal with objections and what are essentially neighbour disputes? And where is the evidence that the new rules will contribute to the original aim of the policy – economic growth? After all, it was part of the government’s Growth and Infrastructure Bill, which is now on the statute book.
The Secretary of State’s announcement in September 2012 was made as part of a general review of the planning system. Giving homeowners more scope to extend their properties without planning permission naturally attracted the attention of the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee.
When the original proposal was put out to consultation in the autumn of last year, my Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Committee colleagues and I were sufficiently concerned to make our own response to the government’s consultation. We concluded that the government’s impact assessment of the proposed changes was inadequate and, they had failed to address or evaluate the social and environmental arguments against the proposed changes. Even on economic grounds I found the government’s case far from convincing. We therefore concluded that the proposed changes required thorough and rigorous examination.
The results of the government’s own consultation on the proposals had not been published by the time the Lords sent the Growth and Infrastructure Bill back to the Commons for final approval. Members were unimpressed however, and after a backbench rebellion threatened to sink the proposals the government was forced to revise them at the eleventh hour. MPs eventually agreed to the new rules – by a reduced majority of 44 – on the basis of a pledge from the government to bring forward plans for a light-touch neighbour consultation scheme.
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) finally published the results of its November-December consultation in May this year. It was no surprise that it showed 85% of respondents were against the original plans. Despite knowing this, the government had intended to continue with its original proposals; it only changed them in light of a possible defeat in the Commons. Such an approach does raise a question about the value of public consultation. On the same day in May the government introduced the legislation for its neighbour consultation scheme and my Committee decided to invite the Planning Minister, Nick Boles, to answer some questions.
The first question was regarding the economic benefit. In November 2012 the government said “20,000 new extensions could generate up to £600m of construction output, supporting up to 18,000 jobs.” It also suggested “each family who benefits will save up to £2,500 in planning and professional fees, with total savings of up to £100m a year.” But 6 months later, DCLG estimated, using, bizarrely, 1970s US house buying data, there would be only 2,900 additional extensions. It also revised down the potential savings. With the cost of preparing an average application at £1,190, and with between 20,000 and 40,000 households a year no longer being subject to planning permission requirements, it suggested the gross saving to applicants would be between £24m and £48m.
Appearing before the Committee, the minister argued that government could not predict exactly what would happen but governments had to be prepared to take risks when introducing policy. There is some merit to this argument, but it might have been better made at the start of the process before the government had to scale back its projections so drastically.
Our concerns went deeper than the financial, however. When a local council receives plans for an extension, it will give immediate neighbours three weeks to object. If no one does, the council itself cannot intervene. This raises questions about the level of control local people and, indeed, local councils have over what happens in their area. Delving into the detail we uncovered an absurd process. A neighbour 100 yards away whose back garden adjoins an applicant’s property will be able to object, while a neighbour 10 yards away whose property does not adjoin the applicant’s will not.
Our call for questions to the minister on Twitter revealed another apprehension. A respondent asked: “What if the person proposing the monstrosity waits until his neighbour goes on an around the world trip and will be out of time to object?”
In response Boles focused on the good fortune of people who have 100 yard back gardens and who are able to take three-week holidays. But that misses a number of points. First, people can be away from home for more than 21 days for a number of reasons including family, health or business. The principle is one of due process, and it is now hit and miss and about how well neighbours get on. Second, although immediate neighbours will have a voice, communities will no longer have a say in the character and appearance of their area.
If a neighbour does object, the council will have to review the application free of charge. The minister suggested that given the cost of processing planning applications, fewer of them will mean a saving to local government. But planning departments should be self-financing with the costs of planning applications meeting running costs. How can there be a saving? Nor could the minister predict how many neighbour-initiated reviews councils might need to carry out. Only time will tell whether the workload of local planning departments goes up and whether their revenue goes down.
The big question is where does this leave localism? This government’s approach looks inconsistent at best. Many more decisions about extensions will now be taken away from local authorities. Even where there is an objection councils will only be able to consider a proposed extension’s impact on the ‘amenity’ of adjoining neighbours. They will not, as they can with most other planning applications, consider wider social and environmental concerns. How this ties in with the government’s commitment to sustainable development is unclear.
The changes have an initial shelf life of three years. What happens then is currently anyone’s guess. The government say the changes will be monitored on an on-going basis with a view to determining whether the three-year period should be extended further.
The minister told the Committee he was innately sceptical about projections of how people are going to behave. Boles said he preferred to try something, see what happens and, if people’s objections are proved, adjust the policy. That is a risky approach with planning and development. Once something is built, once a neighbourhood’s character has changed, it will be next to impossible to reverse.
Clive Betts MP
Chair
Communities and Local Government Committee
