好色先生TV

Planners and architects have hit out at the government鈥檚 new housing design adviser after he expressed his support for the policy of expanding permitted development rights.

In an exclusive interview with 好色先生TV, Nicholas Boys Smith, former chair of the 好色先生TV Better, 好色先生TV Beautiful Commission, also backed the planning reform agenda contained in last year鈥檚 white paper.

Former RIBA president Ben Derbyshire, originally a supporter of the commission鈥檚 findings, said Boys Smith鈥檚 comments indicated it was actually 鈥渁 Trojan horse鈥� for radical reform of planning, while others said it was perverse to expand permitted development while claiming to be committed to beauty.

The criticisms reflect the strength of feeling among opponents of the reforms and come amid reports that the government is to drop some of its proposals 鈥� which include setting up 鈥済rowth鈥� zones with automatic outline planning permission 鈥� in the face of backbench opposition.

Last month housing secretary Robert Jenrick backtracked on the white paper鈥檚 call for 鈥渞oot and branch鈥� reform, telling council leaders there was 鈥渘o need to rip up the system鈥�.

> Interview Nicholas Boys Smith: 鈥楢 bit of controversy forces you to have the conversation鈥�

He could also bring in 鈥渦se it or lose it鈥� powers to force developers to build out housing sites more quickly. The Times reported that ministers are considering imposing a 鈥渟unset clause鈥� on the build-out of large sites.

Former prime minister Theresa May said the reforms will lead to the 鈥渨rong homes in the wrong places鈥�, while former Tory leader Lord Hague compared them to the poll tax. Up to 80 backbenchers are said to be mobilising against them.

Last year backbench opposition forced the government to backtrack on the 鈥渟tandard method鈥� used to calculate local housing need, and introduce space standards into homes via permitted development (PD).

Boys Smith said opposition to the government鈥檚 expansion of PD rights to convert commercial buildings to homes without planning permission was 鈥渋ndefensible鈥� given the housing crisis.

Last year his commission was sharply critical of the use of PD.

He said: 鈥淭he idea that it鈥檚 possible to micro-manage what happens to every shop is for the birds. When you鈥檝e got a housing challenge, it is indefensible to be supporting a system that is allowing that level of vacant use.鈥�

The reforms were not 鈥渄eregulatory鈥� but simply 鈥渂etter regulation鈥� so that 鈥済ood ordinary鈥� schemes were not tied up in red tape.

鈥淭his is not a smokescreen for carpeting over the country with boxes dumped in fields,鈥� he added.

But Derbyshire said: 鈥淭he proposed reforms are undermining because, after years of austerity, there are inadequate resources to implement them, and the frontloaded work to create new zoned local plans and design codes will be skimped. One is forced to the reluctant conclusion that Living with Beauty concealed the political intentions of those who believe less in democratically accountable planning.

鈥淎nyone who has read this month鈥檚 new permitted development rights [鈥�] will have no difficulty imagining just how badly this could go. Our struggling high streets need planned mixed use, not a free for all.鈥�

Ben Clifford, associate professor in spatial planning at UCL, said it was 鈥減erfectly possible鈥� to govern change of use to residential through planning permission: 鈥淪aying we will promote high-quality design through design codes and better local plan processes while exempting a large and growing amount of development from such requirements is perverse.鈥�

Hugh Ellis, policy director at the Town and Country Planning Association, criticised Boys Smith鈥檚 apparent support for the 鈥渟hameful鈥� expansion of PD, which he said was 鈥渄amaging people鈥檚 lives鈥�.

He said: 鈥淚t will fragment high streets and make positive local regeneration impossible to implement.鈥�