The Association of Gardens Trusts

GARDENS AND BROWNFIELD LAND

The Association has been concerned for several years with the escalating loss of gardens in suburban areas and associated built development that is out of character. A number of MP’s from all parties have been raising similar concerns from their constituents in the Houses of Parliament. We are pleased that the refining of Planning Policy Statement 3 [PPS3] (Housing) gives local authorities more power to control such development and the paper below from Tony Hurrell, Conservation Committee Chairman of the Hampshire Gardens Trust gives details of how this planning policy can be used.

The committee of the Association, whilst retaining optimism that further damage to our suburbs will be curtailed, are still of the opinion that in practice local authorities for some time to come, may not be able to prevent development in large gardens due to their inadequate financial and planning resources. Situations are still likely to arise where is there is a possibility of costs arising from an appeal from a developer, the local authority will grant an application rather than risk such costs. There also tends to be a knock on effect in a street, once development has commenced, in that owners feel that (a) the character of their street has been compromised and (b) that if this is happening from over-development of a site, then they might as well sell at an inflated market price to a developer and move to somewhere that has not been affected.

We therefore still support Members raising this issue in Parliament and the second reading of Caroline Spelman’s (MP, Meriden) Bill on October 19^th 2007.

We are grateful for Tony Hurrell’s expertise in preparing this explanation of the way that PPS3 can be used to prevent over-development of gardens in towns and suburbs.

Val Hepworth and Sally Walker

Conservation and Planning

Association of Gardens Trusts

July 2007

Encourage your Local Authority to save gardens from unnecessary development

The redevelopment of large houses in large gardens (particularly those from the Victorian and Edwardian eras) has been a regular element in the development of urban areas, and was especially so in the period from 1970-1990. More recently increasing ad-hoc redevelopments have resulted from interpretations of the definition of “brownfield” land in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 3: Housing (March 2000) and the encouragement of higher urban housing densities ie 30-50 dpha.

In July 2006 AGT (with others) attended a meeting with Greg Clark MP (Tunbridge Wells) who was promoting a Private Members Bill to redefine the definition of “brownfield” land as it applies to residential properties. A good case was made for such a redefinition, yet two examples were provided of how local authorities could, even then, use existing legislation to restrict overdevelopment:

• using Conservation Area status in Guildford (encouraged by the Guildford Civic Society)
• obtaining an agreement to restrict further ”brownfield” development in the Midlands because it could shown that the current housing needs were being met.

At the EiP (Examination in Public) of the South East Plan in Chichester in January 2007, the problems of the loss of large domestic gardens in suburban areas was raised particularly in relation to the Plan’s policies for suburban re-vitalisation and intensification (Draft Policies BE2 & BE3). It was confirmed by officers of both the Regional Assembly and the Government Office for the South East that the new Planning Policy Statement for housing (PPS3) encouraged local authorities to be pro-active and determine the character of their own urban areas. Therefore they could restrict the development of residential gardens in suburban areas.

It is important to appreciate that there are some situations where planned intensification and redevelopment, in consultation with local residents, should be encouraged – as recommended by Hants County Council, Surrey County Council, the Civic Trust et al (In Suburbia) and English Heritage (The Future of Historic Suburbs).

A study of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Housing (effective from April 2007), which replaces PPG3, confirms the verbal information given in Chichester that, amongst other matters, local authorities are now encouraged to be more pro-active in deciding, together with the local community, what their areas should look like and how to achieve this vision (paragraph 14). Key matters to be incorporated include:

• A spatial vision and strategy for housing development in their area (paragraph 46);
• An examination of the current and future level and capacity of infrastructure, services and facilities including, in particular, green and open space (paragraph 46);
• Enhancement of the natural and historic environment, the quality of and character of existing communities (PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Communities (Feb 2005);

• Development plans and development control policies must consider the character of the area, including the availability of private and public open space and landscaping (paragraph 46);
• A range of housing densities considered most appropriate for their area (paragraph 47);
• Densities below the preferred minimum of 30 dph (dwellings per hectare) may be included if justified (paragraph 47);
• Intensification of development is not always appropriate (paragraph 49);
• Where intensification of an area is proposed, good detailed design and layout is very important ( paragraph 49);
• It must not be presumed by either the local authority or the private developer that all land that was previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed (Annex B – description of “previously developed land”).

Conclusions

Clearly the onus for determining the local character and local urban structure lies, as always, with locally elected councillors and their officers and NOT with Central Government. Whilst such an onus existed in PPG3, it is emphasised in PPS3 through the constant theme that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), should, with the community, decide and plan for what they wish to occur within their administrative areas.

In the past, lacking any alternative proposals by the LPA, Planning Inspectors have had to rely on the basic national guidance. When the LPAs have their own approved policies and density proposals, the Inspectors must follow those. After some 12 months it will be interesting to see how the new system is working. Similarly, as it is a new piece of legislation we should monitor if and how our LPAs are implementing the recommendations.

Armed with this information and encouraged by the Government’s (DCLG) policies for the involvement of local voluntary organisations with local authorities, both the AGT and all the CGTs should be directing pressure on their District and Unitary Authorities to implement the requirements of PPS3. In particular CGTs should, most importantly, be involved in and contribute to the development of local core strategies, area action plans, Supplementary Planning Documents and, especially, in the setting–up of suburban Neighbourhood Management Groups.

The application of the recommendations in PPS3 will “give stronger protection to gardens in planning law, and allow elected local councillors to have greater discretion to protect local neighbourhoods”. Let us now make sure that they use these new powers to do just that.

Tony Hurrell MCD., B.Arch., MRTPI ,

Chairman, Conservation Committee, Hampshire Gardens Trust