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)

On 16 December 2014 the Committee held a pre-appointment hearing with the Government's preferred canditate for the post of Housing Ombudsman, Denise Fowler. On the basis of the evidence provided at this hearing, the Committee concluded that she is a very suitable candidate for the post. In the Commitee view, however, to be independent of central government she cannot remain a civil servant and she should resign form the Civil Service before taking up the post. The Housing Ombudsman administers the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The purpose of the Scheme is for tenants and other individuals to have complaints about members investigated by a Housing Ombudsman. The Scheme states that the role of the Ombudsman is to resolve disputes involving members of the Scheme, including making awards of compensation or other remedies when appropriate, as well as to support effective landlord-tenent dispute resolution by others.

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.

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 Committee invited submissions on how the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has worked in practice since it came into operation in April 2012. The evidence to this inquiry has highlighted a number of emerging concerns: that the NPPF is not preventing unsustainable development in some places; that inappropriate housing is being imposed upon some communities as a result of speculative planning applications; and that town centres are being given insufficient protection against the threat of out of town development. These issues do not, however, point to the need to tear up or withdrawn the NPPF; rather they suggest a need to reinforce its provisions and ensure it does the job it was intended to do.

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.