The practice of “garden grabbing”, where developers build homes or blocks of flats on back gardens, is dramatically changing the character of many suburban areas throughout the UK, leading to high levels of unsustainable development and increasing housing densities in areas previously characterised as leafy suburbs. Some figures suggest that over 180,000 buildings have been put on back gardens in the last five years.
Conservatives have been warning about such development, which often puts strain on local services and causes substantial environmental damage, for some time. We have pointed to two key factors driving “garden grabbing”, namely the fact that gardens are classified as brownfield land and the iniquitous government density targets that have the consequence of forcing the largest number of units onto the smallest space possible.
As a result of Conservative pressure, the Government announced a review to find the extent of the problem but its response to that review has been rather more woeful than normal, with some minor tinkering to guidance and a lecture to powerless local authorities to try harder. However, using Freedom of Information requests I discovered that many councils had submitted responses to the review which clearly stated that garden grabbing was a very serious problem in their area. Leeds City Council summed up the tone of many submissions stating: “Development on gardens is a significant issue for the City Council and deeply unpopular in local communities.”
So, at the end of a process that began with the Conservatives highlighting this important problem for communities, followed by a government review where local authorities confirmed that the problem was very real, gardens are still classed as brownfield land, councils are still forced to follow flawed rigid minimum Whitehall density targets and garden grabbing is as big a problem as ever.
However, a Conservatives government would reverse the classification of gardens as brownfield and abolish density targets allowing local communities to protect the character of the area they live in. This is in stark contrast to Labour who have turned a blind eye whilst thousands of back gardens have been concreted over and some communities changed forever.
( 22 comments ) Tags: brownfield, Council, Housing
Comment by Garry MacDonell on February 3, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Where does the small development company go for land… Green belt is ruled out and the large development companies buying up all other available land, only to sit on it and not build… Apparently there’s a housing shortage, or is that media spin to keep house prices up?
Comment by Gary Curtis on February 3, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Dear Sir,
I agree with your sentiments on the subject, but would question the extent of such a change in the reclassification. Some famiiles with daughters or sons, who cannot afford to get on the property ladder due to student repayment loans (with degrees i might add and still loking for work). May feel this is a little harsh when the land itself has been purchased by them and can only afford to develop the only asset available to them. We all wish to give our children a chance of a good start in their adult life, but without some form of allowance i cannot support this. I look forward to your reply.
Comment by Gareth on February 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Hi Bob,
Does this apply only in England, or will the review, and any subsequent legislation that follows from it, be throughout the UK?
Comment by Fran Carpenter on February 3, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I hope that what you say is true. Can we please also change the following: the law which allows developers to demolish property, trees and established gardens before planning permission is obtained ; the law which allows developers to apply for planning permission on land/property they do not own. These are both incredibly destructive, and have caused devastation around parts of the New Forest district. There should also be a code of conduct for developers… I’ll help you write one!
Comment by Fran Carpenter on February 3, 2010 at 7:14 pm
As far as where the small development company goes for land… stop watching Homes under the Hammer and get a proper job…! How about starting a building firm which converts and updates existing buildings in need of renovation! That’s more what we need. But I doubt there’s enough money in that for those greedy ‘developers’.
Comment by Fran Carpenter on February 3, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Final word, gardens are for enjoying and relaxing in, and for the birds and insects to thrive too! Not for making pot loads of money… (finished rant now)
Comment by Ray Turner on February 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm
We had a really big lesson in the 1960′s with hi-rise tower blocks. The housing is lower-rise these days, but the social-problems associated with high-density housing still arise. People need to live with a bit of space around them, with room to park cars and relax in gardens without being excessively overlooked.
Comment by Mrs A on February 3, 2010 at 7:39 pm
I agree with Gary Curtis –
Because of the economic downfall, I have my Married children living with me in my 2 bedroom house. They both lost their jobs, and although there is enough space is our garden to convert /rebuild an existing building into a flat/house, our council is completely against the change. In about 5 month’ time, we will be 4 Adults and 1 child living in this 2bed house. Certainly, a “suggestion with merit” will be more acceptable than an outright law!. We are not asking to build a 3 story flat, only converting an existing building to something livable. Will there be any common sense allowed for decisions?
Comment by Terry Wilkins on February 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I have just been to a Parish Council Planning meeting wher a guy has put in an application to build a bungalow in the back garden of an empty property he owns an intends to rent out. The Parish Council have refused the application but, it now goes to County who, will not want the cost of an appeal so, will approve it. Why don’t they leave it to the local parishes to refuse or accept ?
Comment by Gill Mercer on February 3, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Being a councillor our main problem is that we want to turn down bad applications, but if we do, the Government Inspector just overrides it and often awards costs against us. What you need to do is abolish the Planning Inspectorate and have a local appeal system, so local councils can get back in control.
It is ludicrous that a quasi judicial system should have a single unaccountable individual overruling a tribunal of elected councillors. In the judiciary no appeal is ever heard by less than 3 individuals and by the time you reach the House of Lords, it is 5. The Planning Inspectorate lacks any local knowledge, is completely insensitive to local opinion and has recently produced many perverse decisions, (e.g. finding in favour of one side and awarding costs to the other!
Comment by Jeff Dudgeon on February 4, 2010 at 9:54 am
The worst offenders because it is needless are those who concrete over or pave front gardens.
This is particularly a problem with developers and landlords who think it is cheaper than cutting back a few bushes and dead-heading perennials once a year.
The result where it is not done for carparking is rows of barren terraced HMO houses in a sea of litter with valiant weeds graduially undoing the efforts of the thoughtless pavers.
Birds and insects lose territory for ever and we get more ugliness for no purpose.
Comment by Malcolm Wood on February 4, 2010 at 10:08 am
Hardly think gardening is a problem on the voter’s mind
The gap between Tory and Labour is rapidly narrowing and I am getting increasingly fidgety.
If our young leader doesn’t get a grip soon, we could face the nightmare scenario of Brown back in Downing Street for another ten years – Can you imagine that.
Increasingly concerned by the dithering over policy. The airbrushed campaign poster. Backtracking over financial policies and Europe, and the useless trip to the economic forum in Davos,
Reminds me a little of his other disastrous trip to Rwanda while his constituents were up to their necks in flood water.
We must start pushing policies that the ordinary people are interested in and concerned about such as immigration, crime, the farcical Human Rights Act and the rampant corruption of the European Union just for a start.
Get back to basics. We have GOT to produce some vote winning policies and statements, otherwise the election is going to be lost.
Comment by Benie in Pipwell on February 4, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Malcolm Wood on February 4, 2010 at 10:08 am
Hear, Hear.
Comment by James Matthews on February 4, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I assume that as you are shadow local government Minister when you say “the Country” you mean England, or perhaps England and Wales, but not the United Kingdom. However, these days you need to be specific,. Even the BBC has at last realised this, so the Conservative Party really should take titon board.
Comment by AndyS on February 4, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I take it then criticism isn’t alound? Perhaps you should make sure all ‘figures’ you announce are accurate and not misleading.
Don’t waste my time as no vote from me!
Comment by GARY on February 4, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Hi Bob,
Some good points in your article, like you I want to keep my country a green and pleasant land, However I suggest the best option in regards to halting building and concreting over our gardens and Greenbelt is simple halt immigration and the hundreds of thousands of Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants that occupied property, and CONTROL this countries population then there will be empty houses everywhere for our hardworking citizens, also Bob we can plant more trees etc, that should help global warming immensely (that’s if you believe in such nonsense ) and we wont have to pay more green taxes-yipeeeeeeeee.
Developers have had a bonanza in this country in what they loosely term “treasure island” they have built over everything with total disregard of the local communities and walked away with billions, what a travesty.
Oh nearly forgot we could also stop all these illegal gypsy camps sprouting up all over our green belts and beauty spots again with total disregard to the communities who have worked hard to preserve them.
Comment by Mike Smith on February 5, 2010 at 8:47 am
‘Garden grabbing’ is not necessarily a bad thing, it all depends on the particular site. Many of our members have large houses with large gardens and have done very well out of it. What i think is wrong is where a house which fits in with its near neighbours is demolished to allow a large number of smaller houses to be built. These do not usually fit in with the area, so the first change I would make is not to allow houses to be demolished without good reason. Secondly i would only allow houses of similar design and size to the original to be built and the rules about space about dwellings need to be changed so that the resulting area does not look cramped.
Comment by Jonathan Walton on February 5, 2010 at 10:45 am
With an ever-increasing population, more houses will continue to be needed. Moving from the planning apporach from one extreme to another is not the answer, however.
Clearly, the top-down Labour approach has led to loss of some green spaces, town-cramming and an unwanted impact on established communities. Nevertheless, a bottom-up approach would lead to complete inertia in the planning system.
When asked about what should be built in their area, residents will ask for schools, community/leisure centres, better transport links etc, but usually not houses (which are resisted at all costs). Facilities require funding to get built and usually this comes in the form of assistance from the Council (via Tax receipts) or from S106 contributions. In both instances, house-building is required to assist this process.
Going forward to meet demand, some houses will need to be built on green spaces, some will need to be built on green belt and some will need to be provided via refurbishment of existing, dilapidated stock. To provide the best outcome to meet a variety of differing needs, what is required is a comprehensive review system that looks at available housing stock in each Council area, equates this against what is actually required and then allows for a sequential approach to be taken to the delivery of this.
Comment by Hugo on February 8, 2010 at 12:10 pm
As time passes my garden has grown in comparison to newer developments which build multiple houses on ever smaller plots.
Where the purpose is to make a stinking profit on minute and impractacle timber framed rubbish built in tight spaces I feel sick to the stomach.
Comment by welsh dragon on February 11, 2010 at 9:40 am
Seems if you know the right people you can do anything. A developer has bought land behind us and bulldozed all the trees to build houses – apparently he was told he could cut down “some trees” – not all. My concern is the lack of commitment by our local council – they are a joke. The worse you are at your job the higher you are paid. Queries were raised over certain details in the purchase of this land but the council being the council – nothing has yet been done.
Same as their so called “pay review” which is now running into what I think is their fourth year – everyone knows this review will never be completed as it is going to cost the council money but in the meantime the lower paid staff are being told “wait for the pay review” so that the bosses wont have to pay any increases – even if warranted. The Chief Executive certainly takes his share – he one of – if not the highest paid – office in Wales but no-one will complain as his underlings are given a percentage of his rise….
Says it all doesn’t it.
Comment by Ron Gobell on February 12, 2010 at 10:45 am
I read in the Daily Mail today that the Conservative Party will implement a new bill to prevent Travellers from setting up unauthorized camps and also the exploitation of planning laws. This is a far greater problem and costly in terms of the environment and rates burden. I hope the Tory Party are successful however there will no doubt be a U turn or a watering down of the bill in due course. I am also presuming that the Conservative Party will be victorious at the next general election with the present ineffective and out of touch leader.
Comment by investments Vietnam on May 18, 2010 at 4:30 am
I think that property developers really abuses their right as a developers and do not take into consideration on what nature or our environment should have.