Reclassification of Domestic Gardens (Garden Grabbing)

• Posted by David Jones on 16th Jun ’10 at 16:30 UTC
• 2 comments

PPS3 Amended to remove gardens from Brownfield Land classification

Planning professionals express concern following the new Governments recent planning policy announcement to remove domestic gardens from the definition of brown field land.

David Jones, Chartered Town Planner and Head of Planning at Cheltenham based Development Consultancy Evans Jones LLP has been monitoring the new Coalition Governments recent planning announcements. David comments:-

”For all those involved in development it should come as no surprise that the new Government have swiftly implemented a number of key manifesto commitments. It is perhaps more surprising that the Government have sought to dismantle the planning system without first having in place a viable alternative.

The rhetoric of both the Tory and Liberal parties pre and post election reiterated the commitment to the delivery of additional housing quickly and efficiently. Regrettably the initial policy announcements are more likely to strangle the delivery of new housing, discourage developers from providing affordable homes, significantly reduce housing densities and ultimately place greater strain upon the development of green field sites.“

The press coverage following the ministers announcement hailed the policy change as one which will bring to an end the practice termed ’garden grabbing’. In previous blog posts I commented upon the Tory planning green paper which contained a policy commitment to declassify gardens and remove the Brownfield designation.

So what is the impact of the declassification? Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) has been amended to remove gardens from the Brownfield classification. (Brownfield land includes the majority of land which has been previously developed) This does not however prevent gardens been developed (although reading the press reports and the rhetoric from MP′s and Councillors you would have thought that the policy change comprised a moratorium on the development of any garden).

In most towns and cities the majority of residential properties will be located within the development boundary. In areas where there is a good supply of Brownfield sites there will remain a presumption in favour of developing Brownfield land before considering other alternatives. However in areas where the supply of Brownfield sites is more limited the development of residential gardens will remain a valuable source of development land which will help to reduce pressure on Greenfield sites on the edge of exiting settlements.

In Cheltenham for instance the vast majority of Brownfield sites are protected due to the councils failure to allocate sufficient land for employment uses, thus in practice there are virtually no brownfield sites suitable for residential development. With no available Brownfield sites their remains a presumption in favour of developing sites (including residential gardens) within settlement boundaries, thus the declassification of domestic gardens will not necessarily reduce the number of applications submitted or indeed approved!

David Jones comments:-

”Whilst I have seen good and bad examples of garden development I do not believe that reclassification of gardens is an appropriate response. In practice Local Authorities already have sufficient powers to control inappropriate garden development. The problem has been that planning officers (who often lack good quality in house design advice) have been all too ready to approve poorly designed schemes.”

The declassification will in many cases make little or no difference to the development potential of a site.

The government propose to devolve more power to the community. Communities must therefore decide how the wish to shape development in the future, namely to provide much needed housing in existing urban areas, develop green fields surrounding our town and cities or perhaps cease all further development!.

Many older housing developments were built with generous gardens well in excess of that which is required for family occupation, these same gardens are now too large for the way we now live our lives.

David Comments:-
” I have dealt with numerous schemes involving the development of gardens and whilst financial gain is undeniably a motivating factor, often of equal importance is the fact that large gardens are seen by many home-owners as an encumbrance. Modern society dictates that both partners in a household work full time leaving little time to tend large gardens.”;

”;Ignoring inward migration, the country still has a severe housing shortage with smaller family units and an ageing population. (often under utilising larger homes) The housing shortage will simply not disappear and at some point ministers and/or the community must decide how best to meet this shortfall“

Over the coming months we will see how local authority planning officers and elected councillors react to the policy change, my suspicion is that councillors will interpret the revision to PPS3 as an embargo upon the development of residential gardens, in all likelihood it will again be left for planning inspectors to decide in what circumstances garden development will and will not be permissible.

For further information about Evans Jones Planning please see Evans Jones Planning. If you require specific advice in respect to garden development or any town planning matters please contact David Jones MRTPI e-mail