Town and Country Planning

The hon. Member's tone is surprising, and he should be aware that the problems with Grenfell were a result of decades-old issues in building regulations rather than recent actions by this Government. Additionally, the issue regarding the £40 million Westferry windfall for the developer was factually incorrect; there would simply have been a reduction in affordable housing on that development. Finally, space standards will be included in future permitted development rights as announced today.

Stresses the importance of homes having proper heating, quality of life, and lighting, as well as environmental amenities, suggesting that these aspects should be part of what the Government brings forward in planning regulations.

Points out that plans for local development codes and local style codes to be drafted by local councils ensure a valid local voice. Argues against claims about a lack of local democracy.

Critiques the Government's regulations, citing concerns over leaseholders being negatively impacted by proposed changes for four years with no consideration given to their needs or wishes. Invites the Secretary of State and Minister to address why leaseholders were not consulted during technical consultations. Also discusses specific local issues in Worthing regarding property development and calls for improvements such as recognising tenants associations and providing benefits to those affected.

The planning system ensures individuals and organisations can develop sites appropriately while protecting the community from inappropriate development. Permitted development rights, however, take away community rights to object and have applications turned down. Clive Betts highlighted concerns over space standards, stating that properties as small as 16 square metres are not reasonable for modern living. He also expressed concern about section 106 agreements being excluded from permitted developments, leading to fewer affordable rented homes. The Select Committee's report called for an evaluation of the impact of PDRs on high streets and towns.

Halfon supports liberalising planning regulations but is critical of how office blocks are converted into substandard housing, often with inadequate space standards. He highlighted issues in his constituency where these conversions led to antisocial behavior and social cleansing by some London borough councils. Halfon called for measures to prevent such issues in the future.

Penrose argued that quantity and quality of housing can coexist, supporting the Government's planning reforms including development codes and space standards. He emphasised that increased construction is key to improving affordability in the long term.

Ms Kim Johnson expressed her concerns about permitted development rights resulting in poor-quality housing with insufficient space and light. She highlighted a case study from Balham and cited research showing only 22% of dwellings meet national standards compared to 73% under full planning permission.

Ms Theresa Villiers acknowledged the need for new homes but argued that permitted development rights must include proper safeguards. She welcomed concessions made by ministers, including space requirements and natural light entitlements, while urging further changes to prevent urban sprawl and ensure quality housing.

Mr Matt Western opposed the plans, arguing they remove local communities' say in development and benefit developers at the expense of residents. He highlighted concerns from various organisations about poor-quality homes and a lack of affordable housing provision.

The regulations subject to widespread criticism, with the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raising concerns about a lighter touch prior approval process leading to low-quality housing. Government research shows that permitted development rights lead to lower quality development and worrying impacts on space and overcrowding; only 22.1% of units created this way meet national standards compared to 73.4% through full planning permission. Local Government Association found thousands of affordable homes lost, calling for the scrapping of these rights. Concerns over section 106 requirements watering down, risking already limited affordable housing supply. The debate calls into question whether measures like permitted development are beneficial or detrimental at a time when more stringent protections against unsafe and low-quality housing are necessary.

Critiques the worst example of permitted development, converting an industrial estate warehouse into 86 flats, highlighting issues such as inadequate space for families, proximity to dangerous environments like factories and tip yards, and questioning the legitimacy of developers using planning permissions granted by the state. Urges Ministers to consider building on un-green green belt land close to London train stations to build up to a million new homes. Emphasises that 300,000 new homes target can only be met if at least half are built by councils and housing associations, advocating for intervention from the Government.

Supports the principle of permitted development reforms that ensure space standards while acknowledging concerns over street scene impact in certain parts of the country. Advocates for more flexibility regarding building additions to commercial properties, especially those owned by self-invested personal pensions, and suggests encouraging social rent delivery through such upper-floor developments. Supports zoning elements but expresses doubt about its efficacy in lowering house prices in expensive areas.

Farron argues that the new statutory instruments are not addressing the real issues of housing shortages, such as lack of funding for local authorities and prohibitive land costs. He criticises the reduction in quality standards under permitted development rights and expresses concern about undermining democratic decision-making processes in communities. Farron highlights successful social rented housing developments by South Lakeland District Council and stresses the importance of building affordable homes suitable for local people. He also warns against the proposed changes to section 106 agreements that risk reducing affordable housing projects.

Neill supports some aspects of the proposals but criticises their lack of specificity and potential impact on London suburban areas. He endorses the exclusion of pre-1948 homes from changes in permitted development rights, expressing concerns about diminishing local control and unrealistic housing requirements. Neill also stresses the need for protection for leaseholders and highlights issues with the type of housing being encouraged by these measures.

I address concerns about the Government's proposals to increase house building numbers and deregulate the planning system, which could lead to unwanted developments on green land, loss of green spaces, increased traffic and pollution, pressure on local services, substandard housing development without proper community input, a poor mix of affordable housing, and a lack of investment in council house building. These policies amount to a serious failure for residents in Reading and Woodley.

I oppose the statutory instruments as they undermine the planning system, enable substandard housing development without community input, remove section 106 contributions for affordable housing and local infrastructure needs, and fail to provide evidence of delivering more homes. There is inconsistency between high-falutin’ intentions about sustainability and what will actually happen when these SIs are implemented.

I express concerns about the impact of permitted development rights on housing in Luton, the loss of affordable homes through office conversions, bypassing planning permission, section 106 obligations, and local community objections. These statutory instruments amount to a developers’ charter that will give them increased powers to build poor-quality housing, change town centres, and increase problems for communities.

Opposition criticises the regulations, characterising them as a 'developer’s charter' that enriches developers at the expense of local communities. He expresses concerns about vandalism in streets and high streets due to the changes, especially concerning semi-detached houses and flats clad with flammable materials.