The Commons' Communities and Local Government Committee has written to ministers seeking urgent clarification on amendments covering home extensions in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.

The letter penned today by Committee chair Clive Betts asks communities secretary Eric Pickles a total of ten questions on concessions unveiled on Friday afternoon to head off the prospect of a Coalition rebellion over controversial home extension plans.

Under the terms of amendments tabled before the House of Lords, a new light touch neighbours scheme, a form of ‘prior approval' first outlined in 2007 by Conservative environmentalists Zac Goldsmith and Lord Deben (then John Gummer), would allow immediate, adjoining neighbours, to raise concerns with their local council.

In a letter to members of parliament last Friday, Mr Pickles said the policy is consistent with both growth and localism.  Mr Pickles said it would allow uncontroversial home improvements to be fast-tracked and encourage homeowners to discuss their plans informally with neighbours  - who could count on the protection of local authorities and councillors as independent judges of their property rights.

But the group of MPs have demanded to know if the new proposals - which generate no fees but would entail extra work for town hall planning departments - would be financially self sufficient.
 
Committee chair Mr Betts has also asked if an assessment impact has been carried out to support the new proposals, and asks how environmental and social impacts would be assessed.

Among other questions the Committee also seeks to know if the new proposals are, like the previous set, time-limited; if decisions on domestic extensions would be made faster than currently; and what arrangements would be made for appeals – including provision for householders to submit a planning application if refused under the new arrangements.

When the Committee previously examined the proposals, they found the potential benefits ranged from £5m to £100m. But the revised plans make the benefits more marginal – raising the concern quite marginal national benefits would have to be set against a loss of fee income and a lack of local control, the MPs suggest.