Garden Grabbing To End?

[Nickolarge]

Gardens are to lose brown field status. This will hit the guys who work in the building trade hard.

Some might find this hard to understand coming from a Tory government. After all, property developers are die hard Tories to a man and so are most builders.

If you lived down here you would know exactly why this has happened.

On the one hand we have the typical working Tory doing the building and the developing. On the other hand you have the posh Lymington residents who object to having the large house next door knocked down and seven smaller ones going up in it's place.

If you ever needed help working out who the Tories really look after this is a good example.

Of course there will be less work for local and national government workers if planning and development slows so there is room for job cuts and savings there too.

[AteMoose]

Its not grabbing as the land is sold, or the existing owner builds. The country needs a mix of properties, if this results in more homes built on old greenfield rather than lots of flats on brownfield that has to be better?

[campervanman]

One of the arguments is that developing existing housing plots is less costly than developing real brownfield sites. Yes there does have to be a mix of housing but that won't be achieved by turning all 4 bed victorian houses into blocks of 1 bedroom slave boxes.

[grizzly bear]

One of the arguments is that developing existing housing plots is less costly than developing real brownfield sites. Yes there does have to be a mix of housing but that won't be achieved by turning all 4 bed victorian houses into blocks of 1 bedroom slave boxes.

My parents lived in the same house for 40 years in a quiet cul de sac. After about 25 years someone bought the house next door, immediately build a new house in the garden, and then sold both houses. The person who make the profit moved on to find the next house with big garden, my parents left with unattractive house extra traffic oppsosite them with no compensation. I agree with this policy as long as they do find more suitable land to build new houses on....

[VeryMeanReversion]

Gardens are to lose brown field status. This will hit the guys who work in the building trade hard.

So planning permission for a new house in a back garden is going to be much harder to get?

There are a few developments in my village doing this but they have already got permission, I guess that now pushes their price up.

VMR.

[acer]

Councils to get help to stop 'garden-grabbing'

Councils in England are to get greater powers to stop developers building homes on gardens, the government says.

Communities minister Greg Clark is to pledge to reclassify gardens, currently in the "brownfield" planning category used for ex-factory and railway land.

He will say it is "ridiculous" vital green space is being lost to so-called garden-grabbing.

In January, the Labour government promised to draw up plans to deal with garden-grabbing "hotspots".

There is increasing concern among campaigners about homes being built on land attached to existing urban or suburban houses, which increases population density.

Campaigners say this damages the character of an area.

'Concrete jungle'

Mr Clark is expected to argue that taking gardens out of the brownfield category will "transform" councils' ability to reject unwanted development where local people object.

He will say later: "For years the wishes of local people have been ignored as the character of neighbourhoods and gardens has been destroyed, robbing communities of vital green space.

"It is ridiculous that gardens have until now been classified in the same group as derelict factories and disused railway sidings, forcing councils and communities to sit by and watch their neighbourhoods get swallowed up in a concrete jungle.

Gardens, like parks, are the green lungs of cities, improving air quality, controlling air temperature and flood risk, and providing a haven for wildlife

Dr Simon Thornton Wood

Royal Horticultural Society

"Today I am changing the classification of garden land so councils and communities no longer have their decisions constantly overruled, but have the power to work with industry to shape future development that is appropriate for their area."

He will also pledge further reforms to the planning system, so councils and communities are "centre-stage in a reformed system that works for them, and is not just a tool of top-down policy".

Recent government figures suggest the proportion of houses built on previously residential land, such as gardens, increased from one in 10 in 1997 to one in four in 2008.

Dr Simon Thornton Wood, director of science and learning at the Royal Horticultural Society, said: "Gardens, like parks, are the green lungs of cities, improving air quality, controlling air temperature and flood risk, and providing a haven for wildlife.

"Beyond these very practical benefits of gardens we know that gardening is great for physical and mental health.

"That's why we would like planning measures to go further than protecting existing gardens, to guarantee high-quality green space and gardening opportunities in all new building developments, wherever they are."

In January, the Department for Communities and Local Government said the definition of brownfield land had not changed since the 1980s, but that developers' targets had altered

[Bosh]

I thought we needed more housing... Maybe certain areas are seeing over development, especially in the Sout East. From what I understand garden grabbing will not be banned but local councils will be given more rights to refuse if they see fit.

My area will suffer big time..... Developments all over the place. Maybe that's the point

[SarahBell]

It has always been crazy to allow gardens to be built on - when there are proper brownfield sites in need of sorting out.

A good move.

Obviously there's bigger profits if you've just got to dig up a garden as opposed to deal with industrial mess - but hey ho, we need to keep the green spaces in our cities.

Some geezer whinging on the bbc breakfast (think chartered surveyor) about how we need to build houses in gardens or else it'll have to be greenfield land.

Blox it won't.

Make a rule that until all brownfield is developed no greenspace can be used. Simples.

[Bloo Loo]

there are no fields in the UK.

the land is all used up.

[blankster]

there are no fields in the UK.

the land is all used up.

What were all those green things I was walking across the other day for mile after mile, then? Edited June 9, 2010 by blankster

[SarahBell]

What the government should do in return for banning garden grabbing is to encourage and facilitate renovation, conversion or replacement of existing empty buildings.

They have been paying landlords to do up property for years. Pretty shadey use of money - grants for bringing privately owned property up to standard.

[OnlyMe]

Just just puts more power into the heads of the shithouse bulk builders by reducing competition from other new build. The small plots required to build new houses hardly exist - which is why resorting to garden grabbing occured in the first place.

[blankster]

They have been paying landlords to do up property for years. Pretty shadey use of money - grants for bringing privately owned property up to standard.

Yes, but they could improve the system to make it less shady and more widely adopted - although giving more money is probably ruled out.

[SarahBell]

Yes, but they could improve the system to make it less shady and more widely adopted - although giving more money is probably ruled out.

blox.

Stamp it out.

Got a house with a tenant in that's unfit? Get the house taken off that landlord and done up by council. becomes housing stock.

If you are not fit to keep houses in good condition then you are not fit to be a landlord.

[Snugglybear]

From what I understand garden grabbing will not be banned but local councils will be given more rights to refuse if they see fit.

So in places where the council planning committee is in the developer's pockets - and there are plenty of them - the council won't refuse permission anyway.

And if any do refuse, the developers (if big enough, companies like Pegasus and McCarthy & Stone in my neck of the woods) will appeal to the government in Cardiff, Edinburgh or London, who will cave and find in favour of the developers.

Announcment doesn't mean a thing.

[winkie]

I thought we needed more housing... Maybe certain areas are seeing over development, especially in the Sout East. From what I understand garden grabbing will not be banned but local councils will be given more rights to refuse if they see fit.

My area will suffer big time..... Developments all over the place. Maybe that's the point

Personally I feel quite pleased...over the last 20 or so years in my area have seen many gardens sold and developed on, many large Victorian homes demolished and replaced with inferior blocks of flats, no outside space, trees cut down, gardens tarmaced over, in some cases whole roads of houses destroyed...Often not enough parking was provided, so the local roads have become more congested, creating a higher density of people sharing the same services....so the quality of life for all has deteriorated.

What they are not building enough of is the right kind of housing in the right places with the right services/ facilities with a fast, efficient and affordable rail services.

[OnlyMe]

Another thing, if the stranglehold on greenfield land remains then the only brownfield land available for use will be the closed factories, keeping a premium on the redevelopment potenital of that land over and above the potenital use for that land as industrial/commercial land.

So, more incentive to shut down, ship out and sell out!

[Riedquat]

Personally I feel quite pleased...over the last 20 or so years in my area have seen many gardens sold and developed on, many large Victorian homes demolished and replaced with inferior blocks of flats, no outside space, trees cut down, gardens tarmaced over, in some cases whole roads of houses destroyed...Often not enough parking was provided, so the local roads have become more congested, creating a higher density of people sharing the same services....so the quality of life for all has deteriorated.

What they are not building enough of is the right kind of housing in the right places with the right services/ facilities with a fast, efficient and affordable rail services.

You're missing the point. The whole purpose of land is to build houses on, building more houses doesn't possibly affect quality of life.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Now the boomers have sold their gardens off and pocketed the cash they are pulling up the ladder behind them.

Again.

Preventing building on gardens just plays into the hands of the big property speculators.

This isn't about protect gardens it's about reducing supply to try to push up house prices... plain and simple.

[Si1]

My parents lived in the same house for 40 years in a quiet cul de sac. After about 25 years someone bought the house next door, immediately build a new house in the garden, and then sold both houses. The person who make the profit moved on to find the next house with big garden, my parents left with unattractive house extra traffic oppsosite them with no compensation. I agree with this policy as long as they do find more suitable land to build new houses on....

why should they be compensated for it? it's only a house ffs.

[R K]

My parents lived in the same house for 40 years in a quiet cul de sac. After about 25 years someone bought the house next door, immediately build a new house in the garden, and then sold both houses. The person who make the profit moved on to find the next house with big garden, my parents left with unattractive house extra traffic oppsosite them with no compensation. I agree with this policy as long as they do find more suitable land to build new houses on....

Just out of interest how did your parents house come into being?

Did someone build on that lovely nice field where cows used to wander and the tree warbler used to warble?

[Tonkers]

The stat on the news this morning was an eye opener: 1997 1 in 10 gardens built on, now, 1 in 4 gardens built on.

It's like we had a housing boom or something.

[PunK BeaR]

Houses in gardens were allowed PP not so much because it was brownfield land but that a house could be slotted into a garden without disrupting the existing pattern of building, whilst not causing expansion of the settlement. I dont see how this is likely to change. However, as another poster mentioned, if they do decide to cut back on these types of developments it will just mean more of a stranglehold for the larger housing companies.

[Confounded]

The stat on the news this morning was an eye opener: 1997 1 in 10 gardens built on, now, 1 in 4 gardens built on.

It's like we had a housing boom or something.

Could not be possible we have a chronic shortage of housing. Virtually no houses have been built in the last 10 years and the country has been flooded with new entrants*.

*Population has rocketed in the last 40 years by a massive 10% and we have only built 30% more houses.

[OnlyMe]

Could not be possible we have a chronic shortage of housing. Virtually no houses have been built in the last 10 years and the country has been flooded with new entrants*.

*Population has rocketed in the last 40 years by a massive 10% and we have only built 30% more houses.

You believe the population numbers?

Why do you think the last government removed counting out of port of exit - so the number coming here on temporary visas and not leaving never left a gaping hole in the stats. That is before the illegal migrants are even counted.

Edited June 9, 2010 by OnlyMe