Growth and Infrastructure Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Minister, I have to tell the House that the original message from the Lords was defective, so Commons Bill paper 162 did not include the amendments in lieu proposed by the Lords. This has now been rectified and a revised Bill paper 162 is in the Vote Office. The first motion therefore relates to the Lords amendments in lieu 7B and 7C, as on the revised Bill paper.

After Clause 4

Development orders: development within the curtilage of a dwelling house

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

I beg to move,

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 7B and 7C in lieu of Lords amendment 7, to which this House has disagreed.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we will consider the motion that this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 25 but proposes amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement.

[Michael Fallon]

I thank their noble Lordships and Members of the House of Commons for their thorough and thoughtful consideration of the Bill. There are two main issues before us.

Let me begin by introducing the revised approach to the Government’s proposed relaxation of permitted development rights for home owners. During our consideration of Lords amendments in this House last week, the Secretary of State gave a commitment to reflect on the representations made and to adopt a revised approach. We have reflected carefully on the points raised by Members here and by noble Lords in the other place in their detailed deliberations on the issue, and in particular on the concern that adjoining neighbours would not have an opportunity to make representations on such developments.

In expanding the permitted development rights for domestic extension, the Government propose to adjust the balance between home owners and local authorities, to make it easier and cheaper for families to make room for growing teenagers, or indeed for elderly parents who wish to come and live with them. Those changes reflect the Secretary of State’s recognition that a requirement to make a planning application is out of proportion to the wider impact of development. That is an important principle.

However, we have always said that it is important to balance the benefits against the potential impact that extensions can have on neighbours. Having listened to the concerns expressed, we tabled an amendment which was agreed by their Lordships yesterday without a Division, to ensure that adjoining neighbours will be consulted when the new rights are exercised. We drew inspiration for the amendment from the 2007 “Quality of Life” report by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).