The Government's plans to extend planning permission exemptions are based on an inadequate impact assessment, warns the CLG Committee in a report published today. By failing to take account of the social and environmental effects, the same proposals also ignore two essential requirements of the sustainable development policy set out in the National Policy Planning Framework, say the MPs. The report responds to the Government's consultation on permitted development rights for homeowners, published on 12 November (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11188/permitted.pdf). The Government's proposals would double the exemption from planning permission for extensions to certain kinds of housing - for a period of three years the size limits for the depth of single-storey extensions for detached houses would increase from 4m to 8m and from 3m to 6m for all other houses in non-protected areas. The Committee found the Government's rationale for these changes unconvincing and asked it to reconsider. The Committee also has concerns that the relaxation in the planning rules would be far from temporary.

Government response to HC 830, session 2012-13 (ISBN 9780215052179)

The Communities and Local Government Committee note that the quality of domestic electrical work has improved since some of it was brought within building control eight years ago. But much more needs to be done to protect people in their homes. The main mechanism for checking electrical work covered by Part P of the building regulations is satisfactory is certification by a qualified supervisor operating under a Government-approved competent persons scheme. As long as the qualified supervisor meets competence standards, the person carrying out the work does not necessarily have to be a qualified electrician. The report calls for competence requirements to be rolled out within five years for all those actually doing electrical work to which Part P applies. In the interim, it is recommended that there be a limit on the number of notifications that a single qualified supervisor can authorise in a year in order to ensure that they devote enough time to checking each job. The Government should aim to double public awareness of Part P within two years and aim for an awareness level similar to that of Gas Safe within five years (45%). Additionally, the report calls for more proactive enforcement against those who breach Part P.

This report follows up one issue left from the Committee's 2013 report on the Private Rented Sector (HCP 50, session 2013-14, ISBN 9780215060730): whether or not England should follow Scotland and introduce a ban on letting agents charging fees to tenants other than rents and refundable deposits. The change in Scotland had only been made in November 2012 and when the Committee reported in July 2013 views on its impact were speculative and varied widely. The Committee therefore decided to wait two years from its introduction and seek hard evidence on the impact of the change in Scotland. The Committee sought evidence from a number of organisations representing tenants, agents and landlords in Scotland and have examined relevant published reports. The Committee concludes that the evidence available is not strong enough to reach a view on the impact of the ban on fees in Scotland. In addition, the issues around fees that were raised in the original inquiry are more broadly based than simply fees to tenants, as they affect the overall role of agents in the market and the transparency of that market. The Committee therefore call on the Department for Communities and Local Government to commission a comprehensive impact assessment of the effects of the introduction of a ban on agents' fees in England.

The purpose of the report is to distil experience from this parliament and to assist the new committee in the next parliament. It considers how the Committee approached its work, the way it has used research and how this might be strengthened, and its own assessment of performance against the core tasks set by the Liaison Committee. It then suggests some matters the new committee might consider examining in the next Parliament. These include both 'unfinished business', topics the Committee looked at over the Parliament to which the successors might wish to return, and new developments, which the Committee considers will emerge as major issues over the next five years.

The Government's policy of empowering people through Community Rights to save local assets from closure, build community housing, take over local authority services and bring public land back into use has in its first two years had mixed results. The Rights - to Bid, to Build, to Challenge and to Reclaim Land - have generated some successes, with a small number of community groups being able, for example, to use the Community Right to Bid to stop valued local assets such as the local pub being sold for redevelopment. But limitations have also been exposed. The Community Right to Build is too complicated; the Community Right to Challenge, which triggers a tendering exercise to run a local service, risks damaging relations between communities and local government and is a gamble for groups wanting to run a local service as they may be outbid; and the Community Right to Reclaim Land has hardly been used. The Committee wants to see the Rights improved so that local people have more say over what happens to the land, buildings and services in their area. The Government should: enhance the Community Right to Bid by increasing from six to nine months the time people have to bid to buy a local asset; make it easier to remove or restrict the "permitted development" exemption from planning control when an asset has been listed as having Community Value; and make an asset's status as an Asset of Community Value a material consideration in all but minor planning applications.

The Assembly's main job is to hold the Mayor to account. But he can appoint Assembly Members to his cabinet while they continue to sit in the Assembly. The Report asks how the public are supposed to disentangle a situation in which an Assembly Member can hold the executive to account in one area while working on behalf of the executive in another. As a further example of inconsistency, the Report questions why Assembly Members can sit on some GLA London-wide executive bodies but not others. For example, eight Assembly Members can sit on the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority but no Assembly Member is entitled to join the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime. The Mayor must be held to account for the substantial powers invested in him and the London Assembly is the right vehicle to do this, but not in its current form. The Report recommends that the Assembly should be given the power to: call in mayoral decisions; amend the Mayor's capital budgets as it can his revenue budgets; reject the Mayor's Police and Crime Plan on the same basis as it can other mayoral strategies; review and, if necessary, reject the Mayor's appointment of any Deputy Mayor. In addition Assembly members who join the Mayor's cabinet or sit on GLA boards should be required to give up their Assembly membership and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority should be reconstituted along the lines of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime