Roof extension rules to be relaxed as Labour aims to build higher

Homeowners will be encouraged to build roof extensions and add storeys under plans to make it harder for councils to block higher houses.
Councils will no longer be able to stop upward extensions because they are too high or refuse planning permission because neighbouring houses do not have extra storeys under Labour’s liberalisation of planning rules.
The changes are designed to increase living space in cities and towns. Housing experts said they could “supercharge” the practice of adding an extra floor. However, there are also warnings that relaxing rules could risk neighbourhood battles if residents put up obtrusive or unsightly extra storeys.
Homeowners also face a doubling of planning fees as ministers say applicants need to pay more to cover councils’ costs and to allow them to hire more staff to speed up decisions.
The measures come as part of Sir Keir Starmer’s drive to turbocharge homebuilding and meet a target of 1.5 million homes over this parliament. Looser planning rules are seen as essential to kickstart the economy. In July, minsters set out higher local housing targets, which will be made mandatory as part of a spate of reforms which include requiring councils to review green-belt land.
Ministers are planning to loosen rules introduced by Michael Gove, the previous housing secretary, designed to allow householders to build mansard roofs, a specific type of extension with two slopes on each side designed to be less visible from street level.
The new rules will cover all types of roof extensions, with officials saying there had been “a disproportionate emphasis” on mansards and that planning rules should “make very clear that national policy is strongly supportive of all upward extensions”.
A requirement that extensions should not be taller than surrounding buildings has also been dropped. In draft planning rules now being consulted on, a stipulation that extensions should be “consistent with the prevailing height” of neighbouring properties has been deleted, while councils are told not to insist that multiple homes must build extensions at the same time as a condition of approval.
“We want more homeowners to have the right to extend upwards if they choose,” a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Housing said. “However, we are clear any building must be of high quality and in keeping with local character, which is why councils will decide what development is appropriate.”
Requirements that extensions should match the form of the neighbourhood and “the overall street scene” will be maintained, along with a stipulation that they must be “well designed”.
The changes are largely targeted at urban areas, where the space above Victorian or early 20th-century homes is seen as one of the few routes for significant expansion of living space.
Connor McNeill of the Victorian Society said: “Roofscapes are an important contributor to any urban area’s character and while roof extensions can be an easy solution to providing increased accommodation they need to be carefully considered, especially in areas with a distinctive character or historic interest.”
He urged ministers to ensure that new rules “encourage the proper scrutiny of proposed development, and the opportunity for the general public to have a say in proposals that will affect them and their local area, especially when historic buildings are involved.”
Ben Southwood, the editor of the online magazine Works in Progress, who helped influence the previous government’s approach to extensions, said the new rules “broaden out the policy a lot”.
He said: “In principle, if these are all done well this could super-charge things and you’ll get many, many more upward extensions. But if it’s done badly, you will get a backlash. I would be concerned that people will put designs on top that most people won’t like — the risk is having a lurid orange extension on top of a building, so that instead of no one caring it becomes contentious.”
Matthew Spry, of the planning consultancy Lichfields, said: “It’s very difficult to quantify how much extra development this change will produce, but every little helps. These kind of changes are how you get more small builders and individual householders doing more development and so relatively small changes can cumulatively have a sizeable impact.”
However, pointing to previous local revolts against schemes to encourage development, he warned: “The accumulation of micro-changes in existing urban areas can generate political controversy, just as with the biggest schemes.”
Planning fees will rise as councils say that while prices charged to big developers cover their costs, those charged to individuals do not. Planning application fees are due to increase from £258 to £528 to fund administration costs, but officials insist this will not deter development as this is less than 1 per cent of the cost of a building project.
Daniel Slade of the Royal Town Planning Institute said fees had to rise to make the system work better. “Planning is a public service, like the NHS,” he said. “To work in the public interest, it needs to be sustainable. Raising planning application fees to the level of cost recovery therefore makes sense and will ensure it is sustainable and working for the good of the public.”