In 1879, in a legal dispute between neighbours, a judge said ‘What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’. This pre-dated the first Planning Act by decades, but it outlined two still-relevant principles for control of building development: that one’s use of land affects others, and that rules restricting that use should suit local circumstances. This perhaps lies behind even Tory councils’ stated willingness to resist the government’s recently imposed changes to planning policy.

Presumably wishing to return to the pre-1879 situation, the coalition has announced planning reforms that include suspension of the requirement for planning permission for house extensions, and removal of any obligation to provide affordable housing in speculative developments. Ed Miliband derided the proposals, saying that allowing people to build conservatories without planning permission does not represent an economic plan. As a generator of growth, the changes are indeed derisory, even insignificant, but their effect on the environment may be distinct and undesirable.

If you own a detached house, you will now be able to extend it by 8m without seeking anyone’s permission. This might annoy the neighbours temporarily – probably until they decide to do the same thing themselves, their own gardens having been made that much less pleasant by the overdevelopment next door – but it will also cause more permanent damage: open space will be lost and energy consumption will increase.

If you own land suitable for residential development, you will also now be able to build with no obligation to provide any affordable homes. In recent years, most new affordable housing has been provided by housing associations, which have taken on the affordable homes built under these planning obligations. The developer does not lose money on these deals – the selling price remains above the construction cost – they are just less profitable than the open market sales. A predictable requirement for affordable housing is currently built into the price of land, and removing the obligation to provide it will increase land values, generating a windfall bonus for developers and making affordable housing even rarer than it is now. In the short term, overall development will decline while site-owners seek ‘improved’ consents that omit the inconvenient requirement to attempt to create balanced communities.

Eric Pickles has driven this change (but wasn’t let out to present it). He sees planning control not as a necessary safeguard for our shared environment, but as an unwelcome constraint on business freedom; in a particularly anti-local moment he even threatened to withdraw local authorities’ control over planning matters. While planning controls can delay desirable development, they more commonly prevent damage from overdevelopment, poor design and inappropriate uses. Flaws in the development control system could be addressed by reform of that system, rather than by abandonment of the principle that it is desirable for local councils to determine what should be built in their areas.

Little good can come of these changes. Some builders will be employed on ill-considered and unnecessary house extensions, and some land owners will make bigger profits – a few may even pay more tax. But this is not sufficient compensation for the permanent damage that will be done by the removal of reasonable restrictions on building. The principles of planning control evolve only slowly: what was a bad idea last year will probably be so next year. Developments that would be harmful in boom times remain harmful in austere times and are not made desirable by the benefits they offer to property speculators and self-employed bricklayers.

—————————————————————————————

Gerard McLean is a Labour party member in Holborn and St Pancras

—————————————————————————————

Photo: Alex Pepperhill