---

Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 129ZA: 129ZA: After Clause 195, insert the following new Clause— ““Protection of gardens and green spaces (1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) is amended as follows. (2) After section 71A insert— ““71B Duty as respects gardens and urban green space in exercise of planning functions In exercise of any function under or by virtue of the planning Acts, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) or the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5), special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving gardens, groups of gardens and urban green spaces.”” (3) In section 336, after the definition of ““function””, insert— ““““green space”” means— (a) land laid out as a public garden; (b) land used for the purposes of public recreation; (c) a pocket of green, or predominantly green, space in an urban area which the local planning authority considers of townscape importance and which contributes to the character of the area or amenity of local residents; (d) an area of open space which benefits wildlife and biodiversity;”” (4) Nothing in any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, a regional planning authority or other higher tier planning authority may be used by the Secretary of State to set aside a decision made in accordance with the adopted policies of a local planning authority for the protection and preservation of gardens or green space in their local authority area, unless the Secretary of State or planning authority can demonstrate that— (a) it is essential in the specific case to the achievement of national housing targets; or (b) the decision of the local planning authority was improper. (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as— (a) enabling the Secretary of State or higher tier planning authority to impose targets for local housing densities on a local planning authority in order to override the protection or preservation of gardens, or (b) interfering with permitted development rights.”” The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the preservation of gardens and open spaces and the current classification of gardens as brownfield. The amendment is inspired by Private Members’ Bills introduced in another place by my honourable friends Caroline Spelman and Greg Clark, which received strong support from all parties and NGOs, including the RSPB, as indeed did a similar proposal from Lorely Burt for the Liberal Democrats. For Labour, there was strong support from Gisela Stuart and Chris Mullin, who said that members of the Government—I am sure this does not include the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—are in a ““state of denial”” over this issue. The problem arises from the classification of back gardens as brownfield sites, the emphasis on ““brownfield first”” development and high density targets being forced on local authorities. A survey of six local authorities was conducted recently comprising Bradford, Chelmsford, Nottingham, Guildford, Oxford and Tunbridge Wells, which found that a staggering 72 per cent of all brownfield site development was on gardens. Gardens are under attack as never before from planning policies skewed in favour of infill, backfill and the demolition of suburban properties to increase housing density. There is currently an application to demolish two family homes in a Birmingham suburb and replace them with 71 new dwellings. This folly of the planning system actively encourages a mismatch between infrastructure and development. For example, the existing drainage system cannot cope with the extra load of housing. Sir Michael Pitt told the BBC that the garden grabbing surge had increased the risk of further flooding. He said that, "““if it was just one house and one garden, this would not be an issue. It’s the cumulative effect over time of many, many properties””." It would be a great mistake to ignore Pitt and an even greater one to underestimate the strength of public feeling on the issue. This surge in garden grabbing not only puts pressure on infrastructure and increases the risk of flooding, but destroys the environment, biodiversity and places in which to relax and play safely. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, moved an amendment to protect our heritage. Are our gardens not part of that heritage? A recent survey concluded that people’s health is improved by being in a green or semi-rural area, including a general feeling of well-being and a lowering of blood pressure and feelings of stress. Where has it gone wrong? I would like to be generous and say that defining gardens as brownfield land was a form of drafting that gave rise to unintended consequences. When I moved a similar amendment during the Housing and Regeneration Bill, the noble Baroness used PPS 3 and PPS 17 as her defence of existing policy. PPS 17 deals with protection and planning for open planning, sport and recreation places that communities need, but it does not mention the protection of gardens. They are brownfield sites. PPS 3 on housing was developed in response to recommendations in the Barker report. It talked about brownfield targets, higher densities per hectare, efficient and effective use of land and on page 15 of, "““additional housing in established residential areas, large scale redevelopment and redesign of existing areas, expansion of existing settlements””." That is a green light for garden grabbing: rich pickings for developers. Chris Mullin told the other place of developers flying over back gardens in his Sunderland constituency in helicopters looking for suitable sites to develop. Annex B of PPS 3 states that previously developed land is defined as, "““land … occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land””." That definition specifically does not exclude gardens. It includes them within the curtilage. When I asked my planning officer why PPS 3 was so ineffective, he said, "““when looking at applications, in the hierarchy of different planning considerations, meeting the Government’s obsessive house building targets, the blanket imposition of density targets and the emphasis on ‘brownfield first’ development, has meant that the niceties of garden preservation has been pushed way down the pecking order of considerations. And don’t forget that gardens are classified as brownfield. Once the precedent has been set, it becomes increasingly difficult to refuse, so that it becomes almost impossible to mount an argument that would result in an application being turned down on appeal””." That sums up succinctly why PPS 3 is so ineffective in protecting gardens from development. There is even a note in the House of Commons Library which says, "““there was enough in PPS 3 to justify developers appealing with every chance of success””." This amendment seeks to increase protection for gardens and small urban green spaces. It does so by leaving it to local communities to decide, not to higher authorities and least of all to remote central government. It does not take away the householder’s right to extend their house by permitted development. It does not prevent local authorities setting frameworks that are more permissive. But it does prevent the wishes of local people being undermined; unless in the specific case it can be shown that development is essential to achieve housing targets. Even in such cases, full consideration would have to be given to the importance of green space. The Government are behind the curve of public opinion, and as Chris Mullin said, they are in ““a state of denial””. I beg to move.