My Lords, I will not be moving Amendment 46AA; it represents an attempt to offer a compromise to the Government in discussions on this which, sadly, was spurned.
The effect of Amendment 46 is simple. The Government will still be able to—as they have said they want to—impose a doubling of rights to build without planning permission in back gardens up to 6 metres for terraced houses and 8 metres for detached ones. However, under my proposal, local councils would be able to take a simple, quick decision on whether this change is appropriate for, and beneficial to, their local area. In short, it is a localist idea, which is what we have had commended to us from our Front Bench, quite rightly, for a long time.
It is important that the House understands that this does not stop the Government enabling a general extension of rights. It does not affect any other change in permitted rights that the Government propose, only the issue of controlling large developments in gardens—no more, no less. I serve as an elected council leader and I again declare that interest, so I speak not from some romantic attachment to back gardens, about which I spoke on another day—although I do not actually think that that is an ignoble cause—but on the basis of 20 years’ experience in these matters and with some part in recent discussions on them. In those discussions, like others, I thank my noble friend Lady Hanham on the Front Bench for her readiness to engage and to listen in discussion. She is absolutely exemplary. Sadly, however, I have not found that listening characteristic everywhere and it has to be everywhere for it to mean anything.
I was elected in 2010 on a programme that included a promise to protect local back gardens from overdevelopment. The same promises were given by my Member of Parliament and our Liberal Democrat opponents. Commitments to restrict garden grabbing, as I have said on another occasion, were given in our two party’s manifestos and also in the coalition agreement. I read those out on another occasion—they were clear and specific. As an elected representative I see it as my duty to try to keep promises that I made when we sought election.
It has been put to me that garden grabbing only meant new development but, in my view, it certainly should embrace the loss of half a back garden and potentially more to big new extensions, which is what the Government’s proposal would enable. The people I represent who wake up to find a 6 or 8-metre extension being shoved up outside their back window and who have lost the chance to have any say in the matter, will not be impressed by small print arguments about what promises meant, nor frankly would many of the people who have supported this. I have been encouraged and heartened by the many people who have written and e-mailed in support of the LGA, supporting the stand first taken by my borough and the borough of Sutton, and I am very grateful to see my noble friend Lord Tope here.
I wonder where exactly this idea of doubling permitted development in back gardens sprang from. As I have demonstrated, it was not in any manifesto—quite the reverse. It certainly did not come from your Lordships’ long debates on planning. It was never mentioned. It has not come from any great public call for action. Indeed, as the LGA has demonstrated comprehensively, most extensions outside permitted development are considered swiftly and most are agreed, but after the normal process of mediation and sometimes modification between neighbours that the planning process deliberately and sensibly allows. This idea just tipped out all of a sudden with a ragbag of other ideas, with no prior notice at all, and a hasty six-week consultation was timed to finish on Christmas Eve. We have seen no formal results from or formal response to that consultation, yet Parliament is expected to opine on planning. I rather suspect that if there had been overwhelming popular backing in the consultation, we would have seen the detailed response long ago. I certainly have
not seen it. In short, there is no public call for this change. We have seen no evidence in favour of it and no analysis of the potential effects of making it. I submit that this is no sensible way to make legislation that will affect the home lives of many people in Britain.
6.30 pm
What would be the gains from this policy, if eventually the Government decide to go ahead? Will there be the rash of new homes, which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others that the country needs? Certainly not, unless 6 or 8-metre additions to the backs of houses become more of the unapproved back-garden bedsits that many councils already have to fight. Will there be a boon for expanding young families, as has been suggested? Hardly, for it concerns ground-floor extensions not bedrooms. Will there be a transformation of the economy, as some have said, in a country where we are wrangling about whether we should borrow £13 million or £14 million every hour? Of course there will not be. More unlicensed development in Britain’s back gardens would at best be an undetectable pinprick in the hide of an economic elephant that is reluctant to move. I do not see any serious case for growth in this proposal.
One argument is put forward which I fear is a dogmatic one—and as a Conservative, I always recoil from dogmatic arguments. It tends to the opinion that all planning is bad and that any relaxation of planning is a public good. Some relaxations of planning—and we have had a number of them lately, which many of us have supported—are good, but I do not agree in this particular case. It was put to me directly by one of the proponents of this plan that we have gone too far in respecting the amenity and rights of home owners and need to redress that balance. That was not an argument I expected ever to hear from a Conservative, but that is how it is.
It seems that central government intend to brush aside the rights of neighbours to protect the amenity of their homes by objecting to 6 or 8-metre extensions. I cannot agree with that and tabled this amendment as a way of trying to persuade the Government to change their mind. Six or eight metres may not seem much to those, frankly, who are more fortunately endowed, but for most people who have got their way on to the housing ladder, their home represents the mainspring of their wealth, the heart of their security, their pride and what they value. Of course they value that hard-won amenity and will have a view on a major construction near their doorstep which will certainly add to the amenity of the person building it but may well greatly reduce that of their neighbour.
The planning system exists to enable a balance to be struck between those who gain and those who lose. It is a forum for compromise and my amendment urges the Government to leave that forum in respect of these back-garden extensions. It is an old tradition in this country that every person should be allowed his day in court, but the government proposal removes that right in these cases. Some of the first to use the new power will be those who have had an overbearing extension refused, which would be a direct transfer of power from those who want to obey the rules to those who have not obeyed them or do not wish to—precisely
the reverse of what we say we intend. The removal of the right to have a say risks setting neighbour against neighbour. I believe that that is unnecessary, unwise and touches on basic principles of fairness and justice.
Finally, I have no doubt we will be told that the amendment is unnecessary because there is a power, called Article 4 direction in the jargon, by which local authorities could still opt out of this proposal. However, that power is cumbersome, takes months to introduce and involves writing to thousands of homes if there is not to be a risk of legal challenge. It is costly in terms of potential compensation claims and lost planning fees, and can be used only so long as the Government agree. I ask my noble friend to say directly when she replies whether Ministers will agree to all such Article 4 proposals. If so, then why not accept the much simpler, swifter, less costly and non-bureaucratic route offered in my amendment? If not, then please do not let the Government any more advance the argument that such an amendment is unnecessary because of Article 4.
In my judgment, this doubling of back-garden building rights and the removal of neighbours’ counterbalancing rights to object goes too far. That is why I have tabled this amendment. If there are those of a different view, so be it. My amendment allows them to adopt the government plan. My proposal respects localism and does not interfere with applications, but protects that sense of fairness and justice that comes from home owners having the right to make representations on plans of their neighbours that seriously impact on them. It allows councils to protect back gardens where that is seen as important, but allows the Government to extend rights in other places where that is welcome, wanted and carries public consent. There is something in it for government, something for localism and something for home owners—both parties. I see that as a sensible compromise and I beg to move.