Tough indeed, considering the scale of the housing crisis. The policy introduces a permit system for additional units, which has been hailed as essential for meeting the UK's housing targets. However, this system comes at a significant cost to existing residents and communities, as the narrative suggests.

In autumn 2022, James, a newly single resident, moved into the pale-bricked postwar building. He loved the open-plan living space and having a space to make his own. It was around this time that his health began to decline, and he was diagnosed with cancer. He spent more time at home recovering from chemotherapy treatments that left him fatigued.

Soon after, construction work began on the new floors. His sister, Naomi, who moved into the flat with him to support his care, told me: “The noise felt the same way a dentist’s drill feels inside your head.” The windows stayed shut to minimize the sound – and the dust from construction. Naomi now wonders if they were right in deciding to stay, but at the time it felt like the best option. Her brother didn't want to be uprooted, and being out of work and receiving personal independence payments, he wasn’t sure he would be able to secure another tenancy. “We were trying to look at new properties, but couldn’t quite move fast enough. And then his health deteriorated fast towards the end. We didn’t move, but those last months were very trying.” After his death, Naomi moved out of the flat.

Back in 2020, the then Conservative housing minister, Robert Jenrick,  to make extensions such as the one at Harley Court easier to pass through council planning processes. Owners would have what is known as “permitted development rights” in an effort to increase the number of homes and give a boost to the sluggish Covid economy.

On the surface, these “piggyback homes” (a previous name for such developments) seem a simple solution to the “housing crisis”. The London borough of Redbridge, which covers Wanstead,  in the population over the next 22 years and, according to national targets, is required to deliver 1,409 new homes a year. Last year, a  were built. In a bid to meet these goals, a  that planning permission will only be refused “where the harm is significant and outweighs the benefit of providing additional housing”.

But in practice, it comes at the cost of existing residents. In 2021, Blue Gower Ltd had bought the land on which Harley Court stands, and as freeholder gained the right to develop the lot. Those who owned the flats in the property, as leaseholders, had the opportunity to raise objections to the new additions as part of the planning process. Among other issues, they stated that it would affect their wellbeing, create noise pollution and harm the quality of the air. Redbridge said that such concerns would be passed on to the developer and conditions imposed to mitigate any risks. The borough green-lit the application. (Later, the council approved the building of an additional five homes on the site where the flat’s garages currently stand.) The developers made themselves available to residents to deal with issues as they occurred and limited noisy work to a couple of hours a day, but admitted that living with building work was never going to be an enjoyable experience.

As things stand, Labour has no plans to remove permitted development rights. In fact, the government has set new housing targets, hopes to further cut planning regulations in an effort to meet them, and has threatened to  if they don’t play ball. In the years to come, as authorities around the country work towards these goals, there will be more building, more disruption, more piggyback homes, more Harley Courts.

Advocates for the policy will say this is a temporary disruption that will pay off in the long run and will help boroughs such as Redbridge achieve their housing goals, but numerical targets are only part of an answer: residents don’t just need homes, they need affordable homes. In 2024, the . Once additional taxes and fees are taken into account, that cost is roughly 11 times the average London salary. Developers are business people, not charity workers. They build units that will turn the highest profit – and have no incentive to sell units at a lower price than the going rate. It may seem counterintuitive, but building more housing doesn’t bring prices down. The flats in Wanstead are now on the market and they look lovely, and even come with solar panels and underfloor heating. But they are far from affordable – one is .

Councils have a role here. While approving developments, they can negotiate conditions, such as the inclusion of affordable housing (homes sold at 80% of the market rate). Even if agreements are reached on newbuilds, council planning departments – which were among the hardest hit by austerity, with  – are unlikely to be able to make sure they are honored. In the case of Harley Court, the developers contributed what is known as a  to go towards the local community and infrastructure.

This is not an issue of nimbys and yimbys – that’s a reductive dichotomy. What we have are communities that need affordable housing, residents who want to enjoy the homes they have in peace, and business people who want to make a profit. Councils should be the ones that adjudicate between these interests and find the best possible outcomes. The government, it seems, has other plans for them.

*   Kirsty Major is a deputy Opinion editor for the Guardian
```