My Lords, I move this Motion because these regulations contain important policy matters that make significant changes in planning law, as outlined in the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member. These would otherwise not be discussed by this House. Admittedly, we had a debate under the affirmative procedure on the fees regime for these planning law changes, but as Members who participated will know, it was the substance of these regulations that was the principal concern of the House. Before addressing the policy changes themselves, I shall spend a few moments examining the parliamentary process which has led to this debate.
First, these regulations are being brought in under the “Coronavirus” heading: two completely separate matters are addressed by these regulations and only one is related to the coronavirus pandemic. The part of the legislation covering the building of additional storeys is both permanent and totally unrelated to the present pandemic, so it is quite legitimate to ask the Minister to explain why this planning law change is misrepresented as a response to the coronavirus health issue. Secondly, as our previous debate on the fees issue demonstrated, significant policy changes are being proposed through the weakest form of parliamentary scrutiny that exists. This is a perfect example of a
major policy change being side-slipped through Parliament, first, under the cover of a response to the coronavirus crisis and, secondly, by the use of the negative procedure.
There are further changes coming down the line in the form of a suite of negative procedure regulations that also make big policy changes to planning law. I find this all the more surprising when the Government are proposing new primary legislation on planning law, which would be the ideal and wholly appropriate vehicle for consideration of these changes and would have had the value of full parliamentary scrutiny, undoubtedly leading to better legislation. As it is, the Government are giving the public a set of hand-me-downs one piece at a time, with no possibility of developing a cohesive policy. Why are the Government doing it this way? I look forward to a full explanation from the Minister.
I turn to the policy intent itself. The permanent change to planning law allows up to two additional storeys to be constructed on existing, purpose-built blocks of flats of three storeys or more built between 1 July 1948 and 5 March 2018, up to a total height of 30 metres. When the Government consulted on these proposals, the majority of responses were opposed. The opposition fell into a number of areas but, broadly, they were the lack of local accountability, the quality of the homes in the new storeys, access issues and the impact on residents and neighbours. Of course, upward development should be possible, but only with the essential proper protections for the existing community. These regulations introduce a new and permanent permitted development right that removes much of the protection for those communities.
The process of consultation proposed is a shadow of what currently exists. The expedited approval process may be suitable for considering home extensions, but the building upwards of new floors on domestic buildings are major schemes with large community impact. While prior approval notice is to be served on owners and tenants, within a very tight timetable, all comments received are to be considered only if they relate to the dual issues of amenity and external appearance. For example, will the council be able to consider the means of egress from the building? Is the lift core of sufficient size for the increased number of residents? What about negative effects on the service charges levied on owners? Then, of course, there is the quality of build issue—the materials to be used and the match to the existing homes. It seems to me that the number of new homes delivered by this mechanism will not be great, and certainly not the 800 a year anticipated by the legislation.
A three-storey property extended up to five would require a lift. If one is not present in the existing building, it would mean the construction of one external to the building. An existing lift in a building with five floors may not be a suitable lift for seven floors. Consider the protection provided for existing residents in these blocks. The developer will be required to produce a report on how they intend to minimise disruption; a report not subject to any checks will be produced by the developer. Anyone who knows this business will know that significant disruption is inevitable. The roof covering will need to be removed and the
remaining roof area made temporarily waterproof before any construction can take place. It is difficult to see how this can be done without erecting scaffolding around the whole building for a considerable period, during which existing residents will suffer a major loss of amenity as a result.
Residents will turn to their council and their councillors to express their concerns, and they will find them powerless. Our planning system is constructed on a system of checks and balances, on local people and their councils providing the fair play our communities need. I would be very surprised if developers using this legislation did not meet substantial local opposition, meaning much more work for the local authority but without the power to provide any solutions. The light-touch planning requirements in these regulations offer very little succour to residents and neighbours, who will now find their ability to voice their interests and concerns severely limited.
These proposals indicate a Government making a dramatic shift away from strong and caring communities, with local councils as their facilitators, towards the aspirations of developers and a distant Government. It is through local councils’ transparent process of planning and regulations that the public can make their concerns heard. It is only through this process that elected councillors can make recommendations and insert conditions that ensure the protection of those affected and pay respect to the principle of community cohesion.
The Minister, in responding to the previous debate, called these regulations “gentle densification”. Well, the Government have got it wrong—they are anything but gentle. With the opportunity of the new planning regulations and the new planning law which the Government are providing, it would be wholly appropriate for the Government to take these regulations away, give them a comprehensive rethink and bring suggestions for any changes back in the primary legislation, where they could be properly debated.
2.38 pm