Housing and
Planning Minister John Healey today published new, independent
research that shows inappropriate building on back gardens is not
a widespread, national problem and is often linked to councils’
failure to have local policies in place.
He told the small minority of councils who reported issues in
"hot spot" areas that the power to act is
already in their own hands if they establish clear, local
policies.
363 local planning authorities were approached for their views.
Of the 127 who responded, less than half (50 councils) considered
it an issue in their areas. Of those who reported a problem, only
5 per cent (7 councils) had specific, local policies in place. The
report concludes that councils with local plans in place were more
successful at stopping inappropriate development on garden land.
In 2007-2008, 6892 dwellings were refused on appeal and 1739 were
granted permission (approximately only one in five), demonstrating
that independent Planning Inspectors uphold decisions to stop
development if local policies are in place.
Nevertheless, Mr Healey promised action to head off any current
or future problems by today strengthening national policy advice,
to make crystal clear that previously developed land, which can
include garden land, is not necessarily suitable for development,
and that the decisions to stop unsuitable building on gardens rest
at a local level.
The intensive, countrywide review by Kingston University was
commissioned last year to assess the nature and extent of the
issue across the country and how it could be tackled. Garden
grabbing can affect the character of an area if very different
properties are built alongside family homes. The research
concluded that although the issue is not a widespread national
problem, a minority of councils in London, the South East and West
Midlands had reported an impact in their areas.
Mr Healey has today issued strengthened national planning
guidance and instructed the Chief Planning Officer, Steve
Quartermain, to write to planners across the country outlining how
councils can identify and deal with garden grabbing through local
plans, in turn giving them greater discretion to refuse
inappropriate development.
Mr Healey said:
"Councils are leaving an open door for inappropriate
development if they do not have local plans in place, and the
power to stop this lies in their hands. Councils already have the
tools they need to deal with this issue and this evidence shows
that when they have a local policy in place they can accurately
judge the need for new homes on previously developed land, using
their own discretion, and protect the essence of a neighbourhood.
"If those areas that have reported a problem
don't want to see developments on garden land, they are
tying their own hands by not having a local plan in place. This
evidence shows that planning inspectors will support local
authorities in rejecting inappropriate buildings in gardens if
there is a clear idea of what the area needs.
"Over time, so-called 'garden
grabbing' can change the look and feel of a community
without giving local people a choice, so it is good news that
councils have told our independent experts that it is not a
problem in the large majority of areas. I am determined to keep it
that way and to see tougher action in a small number of garden
grabbing hotspots.
"For my part, I am changing the official guidance for
planners to make it crystal clear that previously developed or
former garden land is not necessarily suitable for development,
and that the impact on the surrounding area should be considered."
The research demonstrates that local authorities can deal
successfully with unwanted applications for garden development
through the development of strong local policies. The report also
finds that the Planning Inspectorate, the Government agency that
deals with appeals, are supportive of local authority decisions
about whether or not to develop on garden land, especially where
local policies are in place.
Notes to editors
1. The final report by Kingston University: “Garden Developments:
Understanding the Issues” is available on the CLG website: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/gardendevelopments.
2. The whole of any housing plot, including any garden, is
usually classed as “brownfield” or previously developed land. The
Government recognises the concerns that some people have about the
loss of gardens, and wants to make it clear that there is no
presumption in favour of granting applications for housing
development on garden land. The Government’s Planning Policy
Statement 3 (PPS3) will be strengthened today to make it clear
that there is no presumption that all previously developed land,
including garden land, is necessarily suitable for development.
3. PPS3 (available online): www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps3housing
offers guidance to councils so that they can tackle obstacles in
the planning system which mean that not enough suitable sites are
available to deliver the homes families and local people need. The
guidance says sets out that councils need to identify suitable
land for housing over a 15 year period, to ensure the delivery of
houses are not held up.
4. The clear priority for development will remain
previously-developed or brownfield land. The latest provisional
estimates for 2008 show that 79% of homes were built on brownfield
land, up from 56% in 1997, exceeding the target of 60 per cent.
5. The Government committed to carry out a review establishing
the extent of development on back gardens following the Planning
Act 2008. It said that if the evidence discloses a problem, it
would look at how best to remedy the situation, provided that any
changes should not have the effect of undermining our objectives
on housing.
6. The study started in May 2009 and gathered feedback from 127
councils. Key findings include:
the overall conclusion is that the matter of garden development,
which has proved to be contentious over recent years, is not of
national scope (just over a third of councils who responded
considered it to be an issue of some kind – 50 out of 127 or 39%).
For some authorities it is of major importance; for others it
simply is not. The geographical distribution of LPAs who
self-report that it is an issue is concentrated in London, the
south east and the west midlands, with the south east reporting
the highest level of significance. Analysis of the results by type
of authority revealed that the significance is greatest in
significantly or semi rural areas and least in large urban
authorities, although outer suburban areas of London were an
exception to this.no authority questioned for this research wanted
to see a blanket ban on development;the research concludes that
those councils who were aware of their policy strategy and were
able to comment upon it in the response, whether it be related to
what they considered to be a specific area approach or a more
district wide strategy, were more successful at defending their
refusal decisions than those who were unaware of policy strategy
in relation to garden development.the research also finds that the
Planning Inspectorate are supportive of the majority of decisions
made by local authorities on such land – especially where local
policies are in place (in 2007-08, 6892 dwellings were refused on
appeal, with 1739 granted).although housing development on gardens
is significant in some areas, the report finds that of the
authorities who took part in the review, over the five-year period
there has been no significant increase (year on year) in the
amount of housing provided on garden land. Further findings also
show that in the areas where garden land development has
increased, the same number of developments were refused.the
sporadic nature of garden development means that Local Planning
Authorities (LPAs) sometimes have no clear understanding of the
cumulative effect it has on the social or physical environment. It
was established that LPAs need to understand the local pressures
and deal with them accordingly, in particular through developing
local policies in partnership with relevant local stakeholders and
with support from elected members;analysing the data regionally
and by authority classification across the entire period, shows
that garden development provides a more significant contribution
to housing stock in large urban, major urban and also
significantly rural authorities.further analysis showed that
garden developments contribute most to the housing stock in areas
where house prices are in the region of £300,000, which is well
above the national average house price. There is a considerable
contribution made where prices are in the region £150,000 -
£300,000 but towards the top end of the housing market, where
average prices exceed £500,000, the contribution made is almost
non-existent. Similarly there is little activity within the bottom
price section, which is just under £150,000.
7. Local authorities have successfully used local policies to
determine garden development applications and defend decisions at
appeal. These policies are generally used in addition to general
housing and design policies. The examples cited in the research, are:
London Borough of Hillingdon
Residential / Urban Design policy: Identifies key objectives,
criteria and issues for consideration in the design of residential
developments. The plan cross-references other relevant local
policies, covers a range of issues with density and design, and
specifically looks at integrating development within residential
areas. The policy states that strict adherence alone to principles
in the design guide does not guarantee planning permission. It
also looks at the prevention of development exceeding a set
percentage of housing on a particular street.
London Borough of Sutton
Loss of Garden Land policy: Lays out the reasons for resisting
development on garden land where it is considered to be of local
ecological value and how to determine the ecological value of such land.
Minimum Standards for Private Garden Space policy: Sets local
minimum standards for provision of private garden space depending
on type & size of dwelling and prevents curtilages being
sub-divided into excessively small plots.
Reigate & Banstead Borough Council
Specific Garden Development policy: Sets out a range of
criteria which developments on garden land must comply with and
discourages ad hoc developments on gardens.
Swindon Borough Council
Garden Development policy: Sets out requirements with which
garden development must comply, including pictures to illustrate
the criteria and provides clear examples of acceptable and
unacceptable development with references to relevant local appeal
decisions.
Warwick District Council
Parking standards: Specific parking policy for residential
developments. Allows refusal of development that causes additional
on-street parking. Links to limitations on applications and grants
for parking for new developments in residential areas.
Woking District Council
Character statement or plan: Outlines key areas of special
character which are worthy of retention. Provides a detailed
definition of the 'character' within each
particular area. Sets out general principles and features of
future development within these areas. Particular mentions of the
character of plots and gardens and in some cases indication that
further garden and infill development would harm character.
Tandridge District Council
Housing Need policy: Sets out the basis for discretion to
refuse development on where housing supply has been exceeded or
where the 'need' for a particular type of
development has been met.
8. Local authorities who are concerned about the loss of garden
land should make it clear in their Local Development Frameworks
what their position is. Currently only a few authorities (5% of
those authorities who reported an issue) have clear policies in
place. The Chief Planning Officer in CLG has written to all
authorities explaining this in more detail.
Contacts:
Communities and Local Government Out of hours
Phone: 0303 444 1201
press.office@communities.gsi.gov.uk