Planning Policy Statement 3 changes
26th Jul 2010
Development on garden land is not new. It has been happening for many years. What is new is the government’s reaction to the perceived problem of ‘garden grabbing’ by amending Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) to remove private residential gardens from the definition of previously developed land (known colloquially as brownfield).
Arguably, there is nothing wrong with constructing an additional dwelling or dwellings on a residential garden, where appropriate.
This was recognised by the Labour government, which commissioned a report into the issue published in January.
A minister concluded that Local Planning Authorities had adequate existing powers to address local issues, rather than national policy being required.
Chief planning officers were reminded that all garden land is not necessarily suitable for housing development and that in areas where a particular problem exists, local policies should be used to address it.
The new coalition government wasted no time in sweeping aside the findings in favour of imposing national policy to deal with the problem, seemingly based upon public opinion from the South East.
It appears that in the South East the term ‘garden grabbing’ describes situations where high density apartments or housing estates are built on gardens of large Victorian properties. There is no evidence that such a problem exists in the North East.
Last month, the new government introduced an amendment to PPS3 which removes private residential gardens from the definition of previously developed land.
Private residential gardens, for which there is no definition, have been lumped into the exclusion from ‘previously developed land’ along with parks, recreation grounds and allotments. Little thought appears to have been given to how that sits with the rest of the wording applying to parks, recreation grounds and allotments.
The upshot is that whether or not buildings on garden land can ever be considered brownfield and if so, in what circumstances, is unclear.
It is clear the government’s intention was to prevent garden developments which would adversely affect the character of a neighbourhood and where local people object, but to continue to allow appropriate development of garden land and residential extensions.
Yet, the amended PPS3 definition contains no savings for garden land where housing development would not have any adverse amenity impact.
On one interpretation, therefore, the PPS3 amendment is potentially wide enough to curtail all development on garden land.
It is too early to say with certainty what the impact will be on developers who wish to obtain planning permission for an additional residential dwelling within the garden of an existing dwelling.
However, it seems likely that it will increase the burden on such developers by being a further obstacle to be overcome in the planning process.
Author: Neil Carter (info@bhplaw.co.uk)
Related Articles
| Regional Spatial Strategy | 22nd Sep 2010 |
|---|---|
| New Flood Risk Guidance | 7th Jul 2010 |
| Planning & Property Obstacles in Development | 9th Mar 2010 |
| The Green Belt Debate | 3rd Mar 2010 |
| Flood Risks! | 24th Nov 2009 |
| Changes to the Planning Appeal Process | 20th Jul 2009 |
| More Scope for House Extensions? Avoid Planning Pitfalls | 14th Jul 2009 |