Mid Sussex MP, Nicholas Soames, this week pointed to new evidence that the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott MP, is planning to concrete over back gardens across Sussex and the country.

The Government has given £2 million of taxpayers’ money to planners and academics to investigate ‘urban densification’. Their recommendations include the following proposals:

• Development in suburban neighbourhoods should be double the current density.

• There is ‘considerable potential’ for back garden development.

• Back gardens over 30 metres should be sold off for building.

• Green Belt land should be built over and any “local opposition” ignored.

John Prescott is already consulting over new planning rules which will impose new higher density targets on new housing developments in Sussex. In practice, this means planning authorities will be powerless to stop leafy suburban back gardens being ripped up and the plot replaced with blocks of flats. Mr Prescott’s current planning guidelines already classify gardens as ‘brownfield’ land, making them easier to concrete over and allowing the Government to produce bogus statistics proclaiming the ‘protection’ of greenfield sites.

Nicholas Soames said; “Sussex’s open spaces are now under real threat from John Prescott’s bulldozers. Labour claim they want to regenerate urban sites, yet sneakily they don’t even class back gardens as ‘green’ space. Mid Sussex District Council is increasingly powerless to protect against growing suburban sprawl and ugly ‘densification’. Councillors should be able to stop blocks of flats being dumped in neighbourhoods if out of character with the area.

“It is clear that John Prescott has our back gardens in his sights and is bankrolling ‘garden grabbing’ studies with taxpayers’ cash - Labour fail to understand that young couples and families want new homes with gardens.”

Conservatives are supporting a proposed new law by Conservative MP, Greg Clark, which seeks to stop back gardens being classed as brownfield land. It is estimated that two-thirds of all brownfield housing development is now taking place on gardens.

Notes

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Prescott’s Government Offices for the Regions, Transport for London and the Department for Transport are funding a four-year research project by Cambridge University’s Centre for Urban Studies

Click here for suburbansolutions.ac.uk document

The project, entitled, the Sustainability of Land Use and Transport in Outer Neighbourhoods (SOLUTIONS) is receiving £1.8 million of taxpayers’ money from 2004 to 2008.

Click here for cambridgenetwork.co.uk articles

An investigation by Conservatives has uncovered a series of research studies already completed.

A London case study into the suburban community of Hayes, Hillingdon, advises:

“The future pattern of development in Hayes is clearly largely determined by the current pattern. This is a nature suburban area. However, should strategic policy demand intensification as part of a compact city strategy then there are several key decisions to be made. The first concerns open land. Excluding public open space (as defined by the LDF) there are extensive areas of greenbelt land, especially to the North. This could be brought into use – in the teeth, no doubt, of intense local opposition.

The second decision concerns redevelopment, either piecemeal or comprehensive. Much of the housing is of an age where redevelopment is quite conceivable. Given the prevailing low densities, redevelopment at double the density (e.g. from 25 dhpa to 50 dhpa) could be viable. Equivalently, there is considerable potential for back garden infill.”

(Solutions, The London case study: initial work on the local study areas, December 2005, p.8).

Click here for suburbansolutions.ac.uk document

The Conservative-led council has refused to support these controversial plans, and council officers have been instructed by the council leadership not to co-operate with the academics.

Another study into Cambridge also recommends,

“For this study we have made four assumptions:

(i) back gardens over 30m could be sold off for new housing, where access can be gained

(ii) redevelopment could occur to four storeys on many sites fronting the main Trumpington Road

(iii) the council estate around Foster Road and Padget Road could be redeveloped at higher densities as part of a reshaping of the area

(iv) gradual densification could occur, unpredictably, over the area of Trumpington as a whole, in response to market opportunity.

Back garden development offers considerable potential. If all were used, at a density of 50 dpha, then the gain could be 900 units”

(Solutions, Findings of local design scenarios: Cambridge, December 2005, p.10-11).

Click here for suburbansolutions.ac.uk document

JOHN PRESCOTT’S PLANNING RULES

Gardens aren’t green spaces

National planning guidance (Planning Police Guidance Note 3) issued by John Prescott in 2000 allows back gardens to be classed as ‘previously developed’ or ‘brownfield’ land.

“Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition covers the curtilage of the development… The curtilage is defined as the area of land attached to a building. All of the land within the curtilage of the site (as defined above) will also be defined as previously-developed” (Annex C: Definitions).

“A net site density is the most commonly used approach in allocating housing land in development plans and is appropriate for development on infill sites… A ‘net site density’ is a more refined estimate than a gross site density and includes only those areas which will be developed for housing and directly associated uses. This will include… private garden space” (Annex C: Definitions).

DETR, PPG3: Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing, March 2000.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/

Dumping blocks of flats- These rules are being revised by John Prescott, and in addition, new density targets will be imposed on all new housing developments. This will mean more buildings are ‘crammed’ into local neighbourhoods irrespective of the transport infrastructure and character of the locality.

City centres (including all inner London boroughs): Above 70 dwellings/hectare

Urban: 40 - 75 dwellings/hectare

Suburban: 33 - 55 dwellings/hectare

Rural: 30 - 40 dwellings/hectare

ODPM, Draft Planning Policy Statement 3, December 2005, Annex C

Click here for odpm.gov.uk NewPlanningPolicyStatement

Other planning rules by John Prescott (PPG13) also prevent new homes being built with sufficient off-street car parking spaces, increasing pressure on on-street parking.

CONSERVATIVES CALLS FOR NEW LAWS

Greg Clark, MP for Tunbridge Wells, has introduced a Private Members’ Bill in the House of Commons to stop the wholesale exploitation of a loophole in the planning system, by preventing gardens being classified as brownfield land. The Bill receives its 2nd Reading in the Commons on 12th May, and is being supported by the Conservative frontbench.

The Government does not collate statistics on back garden development, but a sample survey of six local authorities (Bradford, Chelmsford, Guildford, Nottingham, Oxford, Tunbridge Wells) has suggested that two-thirds of brownfield housing development is on back gardens.

HOME BUYERS WANT GARDENS

A 2005 Mori poll, carried out on behalf of CABE, found that half of those questioned favoured a detached house and 22 per cent a bungalow. Just 2 per cent wanted a low rise flat and 1 per cent a flat in a high rise block. CABE noted,

“The findings reveal a significant gap between the current preferences of homebuyers and the vision of planners and architects, such as Richard Rogers. While supply is currently planned around a model of higher density living in a 'compact city', the overwhelming majority of homebuyers still want to live in a suburban dwelling...

A crucial factor for homebuyers in choosing a house is the provision of outside space, and of gardens in particular. Over three quarters of the respondents preferred to have a private garden rather than sharing a communal space with their neighbours. Front gardens are also viewed as important, as buffer between private space and the public realm of the street. Only 1% of buyers said they would accept no space between the house and the street and only 20% would accept less than 6 feet.”

CABE press release, 21 March 2005.

Click here for cabe.org.uk press release