The permitted development rights to allow the change of offices to residential use were introduced in May 2013. These rights are contributing to a more efficient use of our existing building stock, and are providing badly needed new homes such as studios and one-bedroom flats for young people. This is especially true in London where there is a particularly acute need for more housing. In turn, bringing new residents to the local area also brings business and helps generate growth.

Planning and building regulations are two separate processes. This policy does not affect the need for all the usual necessary building regulations approvals, including fire safety, sound insulation and energy efficiency. The new dwellings would also be subject to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System regulations on space and crowding.

The permitted development rights to allow the change of offices to residential use were introduced in May 2013. These rights are contributing to a more efficient use of our existing building stock, and are providing badly needed new homes such as studios and one-bedroom flats for young people. This is especially true in London where there is a particularly acute need for more housing. In turn, bringing new residents to the local area also brings business and helps generate growth.

This market-led approach reflects that business patterns are changing with new technology: as a whole, while there is increasing demand for new housing due to a growing population, modern firms need less physical office space than they used to.

The information requested in the hon. Member’s questions is not centrally held, as the rights are overseen by local authorities. But I would observe that research published by Knight Frank in May 2014 has shown that nationally, prior approval applications have been secured for over 3.2 million square feet of new housing. Moreover, an analysis by Planning magazine last month, surveying London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield, estimated that a total of 17,425 new homes have been given permission across those specific cities.

I appreciate that the Labour Party have opposed these reforms – yet HM Opposition have failed to say exactly where they think new homes should be provided instead if they oppose such brownfield regeneration.

We are considering the responses to the Technical consultation on planning which included a proposal on the change of use from offices to residential; any subsequent legislative changes will be brought forward in this Parliament. We will also publish the Government response to the consultation and an Impact Assessment in due course.

The permitted development rights to allow the change of offices to residential use were introduced in May 2013. These rights are contributing to a more efficient use of our existing building stock, and are providing badly needed new homes such as studios and one-bedroom flats for young people. This is especially true in London where there is a particularly acute need for more housing. In turn, bringing new residents to the local area also brings business and helps generate growth.

This market-led approach reflects that business patterns are changing with new technology: as a whole, while there is increasing demand for new housing due to a growing population, modern firms need less physical office space than they used to.

The information requested in the hon. Member’s questions is not centrally held, as the rights are overseen by local authorities. But I would observe that research published by Knight Frank in May 2014 has shown that nationally, prior approval applications have been secured for over 3.2 million square feet of new housing. Moreover, an analysis by Planning magazine last month, surveying London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield, estimated that a total of 17,425 new homes have been given permission across those specific cities.

I appreciate that the Labour Party have opposed these reforms – yet HM Opposition have failed to say exactly where they think new homes should be provided instead if they oppose such brownfield regeneration.

We are considering the responses to the Technical consultation on planning which included a proposal on the change of use from offices to residential; any subsequent legislative changes will be brought forward in this Parliament. We will also publish the Government response to the consultation and an Impact Assessment in due course.

The permitted development rights to allow the change of offices to residential use were introduced in May 2013. These rights are contributing to a more efficient use of our existing building stock, and are providing badly needed new homes such as studios and one-bedroom flats for young people. This is especially true in London where there is a particularly acute need for more housing. In turn, bringing new residents to the local area also brings business and helps generate growth.

This market-led approach reflects that business patterns are changing with new technology: as a whole, while there is increasing demand for new housing due to a growing population, modern firms need less physical office space than they used to.

The information requested in the hon. Member’s questions is not centrally held, as the rights are overseen by local authorities. But I would observe that research published by Knight Frank in May 2014 has shown that nationally, prior approval applications have been secured for over 3.2 million square feet of new housing. Moreover, an analysis by Planning magazine last month, surveying London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield, estimated that a total of 17,425 new homes have been given permission across those specific cities.

I appreciate that the Labour Party have opposed these reforms – yet HM Opposition have failed to say exactly where they think new homes should be provided instead if they oppose such brownfield regeneration.

We are considering the responses to the Technical consultation on planning which included a proposal on the change of use from offices to residential; any subsequent legislative changes will be brought forward in this Parliament. We will also publish the Government response to the consultation and an Impact Assessment in due course.

The permitted development rights to allow the change of offices to residential use were introduced in May 2013. These rights are contributing to a more efficient use of our existing building stock, and are providing badly needed new homes such as studios and one-bedroom flats for young people. This is especially true in London where there is a particularly acute need for more housing. In turn, bringing new residents to the local area also brings business and helps generate growth.

This market-led approach reflects that business patterns are changing with new technology: as a whole, while there is increasing demand for new housing due to a growing population, modern firms need less physical office space than they used to.

The information requested in the hon. Member’s questions is not centrally held, as the rights are overseen by local authorities. But I would observe that research published by Knight Frank in May 2014 has shown that nationally, prior approval applications have been secured for over 3.2 million square feet of new housing. Moreover, an analysis by Planning magazine last month, surveying London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield, estimated that a total of 17,425 new homes have been given permission across those specific cities.

I appreciate that the Labour Party have opposed these reforms – yet HM Opposition have failed to say exactly where they think new homes should be provided instead if they oppose such brownfield regeneration.

We are considering the responses to the Technical consultation on planning which included a proposal on the change of use from offices to residential; any subsequent legislative changes will be brought forward in this Parliament. We will also publish the Government response to the consultation and an Impact Assessment in due course.

The permitted development rights to allow the change of offices to residential use were introduced in May 2013. These rights are contributing to a more efficient use of our existing building stock, and are providing badly needed new homes such as studios and one-bedroom flats for young people. This is especially true in London where there is a particularly acute need for more housing. In turn, bringing new residents to the local area also brings business and helps generate growth.

This market-led approach reflects that business patterns are changing with new technology: as a whole, while there is increasing demand for new housing due to a growing population, modern firms need less physical office space than they used to.

The information requested in the hon. Member’s questions is not centrally held, as the rights are overseen by local authorities. But I would observe that research published by Knight Frank in May 2014 has shown that nationally, prior approval applications have been secured for over 3.2 million square feet of new housing. Moreover, an analysis by Planning magazine last month, surveying London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield, estimated that a total of 17,425 new homes have been given permission across those specific cities.

I appreciate that the Labour Party have opposed these reforms – yet HM Opposition have failed to say exactly where they think new homes should be provided instead if they oppose such brownfield regeneration.

We are considering the responses to the Technical consultation on planning which included a proposal on the change of use from offices to residential; any subsequent legislative changes will be brought forward in this Parliament. We will also publish the Government response to the consultation and an Impact Assessment in due course.

The permitted development rights to allow the change of offices to residential use were introduced in May 2013. These rights are contributing to a more efficient use of our existing building stock, and are providing badly needed new homes such as studios and one-bedroom flats for young people. This is especially true in London where there is a particularly acute need for more housing. In turn, bringing new residents to the local area also brings business and helps generate growth.

This market-led approach reflects that business patterns are changing with new technology: as a whole, while there is increasing demand for new housing due to a growing population, modern firms need less physical office space than they used to.

The information requested in the hon. Member’s questions is not centrally held, as the rights are overseen by local authorities. But I would observe that research published by Knight Frank in May 2014 has shown that nationally, prior approval applications have been secured for over 3.2 million square feet of new housing. Moreover, an analysis by Planning magazine last month, surveying London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield, estimated that a total of 17,425 new homes have been given permission across those specific cities.

I appreciate that the Labour Party have opposed these reforms – yet HM Opposition have failed to say exactly where they think new homes should be provided instead if they oppose such brownfield regeneration.

We are considering the responses to the Technical consultation on planning which included a proposal on the change of use from offices to residential; any subsequent legislative changes will be brought forward in this Parliament. We will also publish the Government response to the consultation and an Impact Assessment in due course.

We are currently considering responses to the consultation on this matter and will publish the Government response in due course.

The permitted development rights to allow the change of offices to residential use were introduced in May 2013. These rights are contributing to a more efficient use of our existing building stock, and are providing badly needed new homes such as studios and one-bedroom flats for young people. This is especially true in London where there is a particularly acute need for more housing. In turn, bringing new residents to the local area also brings business and helps generate growth.

This market-led approach reflects that business patterns are changing with new technology: as a whole, while there is increasing demand for new housing due to a growing population, modern firms need less physical office space than they used to.

The information requested in the hon. Member’s questions is not centrally held, as the rights are overseen by local authorities. But I would observe that research published by Knight Frank in May 2014 has shown that nationally, prior approval applications have been secured for over 3.2 million square feet of new housing. Moreover, an analysis by Planning magazine last month, surveying London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield, estimated that a total of 17,425 new homes have been given permission across those specific cities.

I appreciate that the Labour Party have opposed these reforms – yet HM Opposition have failed to say exactly where they think new homes should be provided instead if they oppose such brownfield regeneration.

We are considering the responses to the Technical consultation on planning which included a proposal on the change of use from offices to residential; any subsequent legislative changes will be brought forward in this Parliament. We will also publish the Government response to the consultation and an Impact Assessment in due course.

The published proposals from our Housing Standards Review relate to new build housing. The conversion of an existing building is technically more complex than a new build – as the existing configuration of internal walls and structures will influence the spatial dimensions of the new dwelling.

Notwithstanding, any new dwellings created by change of use would be subject to Housing Health and Safety Rating System regulations on space and crowding, as well as aspects of the building regulations including fire safety, sound insulation and energy efficiency.

First, may I express great sadness that the right hon. Gentleman was not on his feet yesterday to defend his leader? For him to be missing seems to me to be deeply shameful. [Interruption.] Well I’m here to defend Ed.

We did this because there was quite a lot of surplus office accommodation. It was a necessary thing to do and I think it has improved a number of town centres by getting people new homes. In terms of offering new and exciting ways for people to set up new businesses, the situation remains open.

I join the Secretary of State in condemning anti-Semitic abuse. I very much welcome the action he has taken today.

Last year, the Secretary of State decided to extend permitted development rights so that offices could be converted to residential use without requiring planning permission. What assessment has he made of the impact of his change on the availability of office space, in particular for small and start-up businesses that are so important to our economy?

I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to defend the Leader of the Opposition, which again I am very shocked at. He should do his homework: local schemes exist and article 4 exists. It is possible to decide where they go and where they do not. People need housing, and where Labour failed to deliver houses, we have succeeded.

It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of State has clearly made no effort at all to find out the impact of his decision, despite reports of small businesses being affected. As he will know, the Mayor of London is very unhappy about what he has done. The Business Secretary thinks it is a really bad idea, saying that

“in south-west London large swathes of commercial property are in the process of disappearing…there is nowhere for small firms to operate.”

A recent Local Government Association survey found in one case that 100 charities and small businesses had been given four to six weeks’ notice to quit. The right hon. Gentleman used to be a localist. He said earlier that he has given more power to local communities to take decisions on planning, so why did he decide that his view on this matter would prevail over the views of local people?