George and Burt on Garden Land Development

11.20.00am GMT Thu 5th Feb 2009

• [Feb 03]: Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat): IT is a great pleasure to have secured this important debate on garden land development, which has been hotly debated in the Commons for some time.

I wish to go through a chronology of the kind of debates that we have had on this subject over recent years, and to raise some matters from my own constituency. I shall also draw on other issues, on which hon. Members may wish to reflect.

It is a great pity that the Conservatives do not seem to have put forward a Front-Bench spokesman because I am discussing matters that they, too, need to address-[Interruption.] The spokesman is arriving as I speak, perhaps having been persuaded to come by the note that I dropped into their Whips Office outlining the issues that I would be raising.

Garden land development is a hotly debated subject, which is partly because we know that the planning system is largely fuelled by greed rather than need. The system itself has to balance the various pressures that are on both planning committees and authorities. In particular, I am referring to the pressures on valuable-especially from a developer's point of view-garden sites in exclusive parts of our towns and cities, and in smaller towns and villages. Clearly the pressure for such development, which concerns all parties, is something that local authorities are struggling to cope with.

Andrew Smith (Oxford East, Labour): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and I hope to contribute later. Does he accept that it is not just the exclusive areas of towns and cities that are under pressure, but all sorts of areas, and that they deserve equal protection?

Andrew George: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are not just talking about exclusive areas. I was making the point that developers' interests are acute in areas in which the potential inducements of greatly increased land values are particularly large.

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): Just picking up on that point, does my hon. Friend agree that part of the attraction of garden development for many developers is that they can buy one house and then put in place nine properties-flats and so on-without having to provide any affordable housing? They thus choose such land over larger developments, which have to include affordable housing, which has a significant impact on all neighbourhoods.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that has been highlighted in many debates in the House. I am sure that the Minister will take it on board and comment on it later. If there is a wish is to produce affordable housing on garden land developments, there is a problem, because such developments often fall below the quota level that a local authority requires to be able to insist that a proportion of the properties are made available for those needing affordable housing.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour): I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and I apologise that I will not be able to stay for the whole debate. Does he agree that one of the real issues here is the fact that back gardens are effectively known as brownfield sites, which makes their development easy? In that regard, may I draw his attention to my private Member's Bill, which will be considered on 8 May, entitled Land Use (Gardens Protections Etc) Bill, which would deal with that by zoning gardens as green, which is what they are?

Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saving me from having to highlight his work. As I have indicated, this issue concerns people in all political parties and has been hotly debated for some time.

Bob Spink (Castle Point, Independent): The hon. Gentleman is right to make the extremely good point that planning is driven by greed not need. Not only do developers not have to provide affordable housing in such circumstances, and not only do they often cram in blocks of flats without gardens or parking, which causes problems for neighbourhoods, but they do not have to make a contribution towards infrastructure around those sites, such as new roads. That is yet another attraction for them, and a reason why we should try to give special protection to such garden sites.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. Depending on the scale of the development, it can be difficult for local planning authorities to insist, through a section 106 agreement, that developers make a significant contribution to infrastructure. The Government have said that they have given local authorities the power to apply 106 agreement obligations to developers in such circumstances, but many local authorities have found it very difficult to address the real infrastructure implications of many such developments, especially when there is additional pressure on parking, amenity space and other things within town centres.

Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat): By securing this debate, my hon. Friend has demonstrated once again how effectively he represents his constituency in this place. Does he recognise the difficulty faced by local councils that are forced-owing to the likelihood in many cases of losing on appeal-to permit small developments with no affordable housing, but at the same time are not allowed to provide large-scale affordable housing, even in mixed developments? Furthermore, housing associations cannot build the affordable housing that is desperately needed as a result of the Government's failure to provide affordable housing over the past 10 years.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend raises a point that places this debate in the context of the need and desire-I share that desire with the Government-to meet affordable housing need. There is a significant difference between what is happening with garden land development, which largely-certainly in my part of the world-makes a nil, or if anything a minuscule, contribution to meeting the desperate need for affordable housing, and the kind of schemes required to meet that need. In areas such as mine, those schemes are extremely difficult to bring forward. There is an astronomical difference between house prices and earnings in such places, so particular skills and efforts are required, primarily on the part of public authorities, to meet the sort of affordable housing need that he rightly highlights.

Garden land development is at the heart of middle England, which is in part why it is so hotly debated. It concerns a group of people on which all political parties direct a tremendous amount of political focus, hence the tremendous effort by certain parties to expend what is arguably a disproportionate amount of political time on trying to win the argument, to present themselves as the saviours of garden land and to reassure affected neighbourhoods that they are on side. There is plenty of opportunity, therefore, for claims, counter-claims, point scoring and bandwagon jumping.

Having got over the first hurdle of taking various interventions, I hope to give a potted history of what has been happening in recent years, an assessment of the impact of the difficulties of classifying gardens as brownfield sites, and the primary problems associated with garden land development. I shall then examine the origins of the modern-day trend towards garden land development and give a short narrative on issues that I have raised over the years regarding garden land development and similar development in the small market and rural towns in my constituency. I shall also scrutinise closely some of the more recent campaigning before coming to my concluding remarks.

With regard to chronology, these issues have been debated many times. I particularly commend my hon. Friend Lorely Burt for having listened to and been engaged in many debates in the House on planning and development. On 19 July 2005, following the general election, she introduced a ten-minute Bill entitled the Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill. She hit the nail on the head when she proposed amending planning policy guidance note 3 to designate gardens as greenfield land, with an exception for extensions into back gardens. She suggested that such land would be developed last under the sequential test and highlighted the importance of protecting parkland and amenity land in town centres.

On 1 February 2006, Greg Clark introduced a Bill that was similar, but more narrowly focused on private gardens. On 20 October 2006, my hon. Friend's Bill had its Second Reading debate, which was preceded, on 21 June 2006, by an Opposition day debate led by Mrs. Spelman. The Opposition motion began:

"That this House shares the concern of communities throughout the United Kingdom over the scale of residential development on garden land".

A number of issues were set out, particularly with regard to the designation of garden land as brownfield sites.

On 2 February 2007, the Second Reading of a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Lady, the Land Use (Gardens Protection etc) Bill, was debated. On 18 March 2008, she introduced, under the ten-minute rule, the Land Use (Garden Protection) Bill, which I co-sponsored.

The issue was hotly debated during the passage of the Bill that became the Planning Act 2008, through which there was an attempt to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and subsequent Acts to make local authorities have special regard to

"the desirability of preserving gardens, groups of gardens and urban green spaces."

An amendment to that effect was made in the House of Lords on 12 November 2008, but it was successfully struck out by the Government when the Commons considered Lords amendments to the Bill on 24 November 2008. Ministers promised at that stage that there would be a review of the impact of garden land development. There has been some progress, in that the review's remit has been announced, but I would be interested to hear what progress is being made with the review.

Many statistics have been traded on the impact of garden land development. Although the Government have met their target of increasing the proportion of development on brownfield sites, it is clear that many of those developments have involved garden land. Looking at the statistics, it has been difficult, even in my area, to draw out the impact that garden land development has had, unless one analyses individual sites. However, it is clear that there has been a significant impact in my area.

The main problem with garden land development has been well highlighted in previous debates. Such development contradicts the established British view of what towns and cities should be. The Town and Country Planning Association, Britain's oldest planning charity, was founded in 1899 by Sir Ebenezer Howard. At that time, it was called the Garden Cities Association, and its purpose was to promote the idea of the garden city. Such a perspective of towns and cities is well established in British life. We do not see towns and cities as simply urban jungles without any green space, but as places where there are green lungs and wedges, and where gardens are protected. There is a recognition that such areas make a valuable contribution to the life of our towns and cities. As has been highlighted, garden land development can have an impact on biodiversity, drainage, climate change and aesthetics, and the creation of such developments can lead to neighbourhood conflicts. Also, as hon. Members have said, such developments do not necessarily address the urgent need for affordable housing, because, often, they are below the quota level on which local authorities insist.

The origins of garden land development go back further than 1997; in fact, they go back to 1985 when, under a Conservative Government, there was a change to the existing definition of brownfield land for the purpose of land use planning statistics. In my part of the world, there was a rush of successful applications to develop gardens during the late 1980s. The pressure arose because the message went out that people with large gardens were sitting on a gold mine that they should realise. The pattern emerged at that stage, so it is not new and did not first arise in the late 1990s.

Clearly, additional pressure was applied when the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Prescott, who was then in charge of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, set targets for councils to prioritise building new homes on brownfield sites in 1998. The Government met their target of building 60 per cent. on previously developed land in 2001, years earlier than planned.

A number of problems have been created in my part of the world by intense waves of excessive development, particularly in the mid to late 1980s, the late 1990s and throughout the past 10 years. I have received many letters from constituents, but I will read one from Naomi Cliff of St. Ives, which was sent to me on 18 July 2007. She wrote:

"We are constantly seeing inappropriate modern buildings rising up in our historic town on the smallest of plots and in the most inappropriate areas; mainly catering for the second home market as they make no provision for affordability and are architecturally misplaced."

I have raised the issue on behalf of my constituents for many years. On 25 October 2005, I received a letter from Yvette Cooper, who was then a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, explaining:

"Classifying gardens as 'Residential' was...not a creation of the current Government. This definition was later incorporated into PPG3 in 2000. The Land Use Change statistics classification has not changed since 1985."

The district council felt that it did not have the power to resist the kind of developments that I have described. When I showed a copy of that letter to the head of sustainable development and improvement at Penwith district council, Mr. Barton, he wrote back to me on 22 May 2006 saying:

"however, it is still evident from appeal decisions received that inspectors are placing much weight to the brownfield case."

That letter concerns garden land development within my constituency.

The Government adapted what is now planning policy statement 6 in April 2007. In a letter to me dated 19 September 2007, the right hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford wrote:

"Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) goes further and gives local authorities more flexibility to shape new development according to the needs of their area, and allows them to make the decisions on where new housing should be located. It makes clear local authorities can put strong emphasis on protecting urban green spaces, parks and play areas within their plans...The new policy statement gives them greater powers to restrict garden development if they have alternative viable land available and the level of development within residential areas is much higher than their plan."

The problem with that is that while alternative sites had been identified by local authorities, developers were unfortunately not prepared to bring them forward. The five-year development of land was available and planning permissions had been granted, but that put pressure back on garden land development, despite the best efforts of local authorities to find development land.

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): Is my hon. Friend aware that finding alternative sites in intensely populated areas such as south-west London is near impossible, even when trying to build new schools that are required? That caveat is entirely unsuitable for an area where population densities are already incredibly high; it merely adds more pressure, and is not necessarily an appropriate protection.

Andrew George: I certainly hope that the Minister will take those comments on board. My hon. Friend has a great deal more experience than me of the particular planning pressures in areas such as south-west London. I can only comment from my experiences of attempting to assist constituents in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which I represent and where I come from.

After I raised that issue with the sustainable development and design manager, Andrew England, from Penwith district council, he responded, in a letter of 25 July 2007:

"However, as the planning legislation currently states the plot in question"-

in this case, another plot in St. Ives-

"is regarded as brownfield land where the principle of development is supported. Inevitably given the national issues surrounding the need for more housing this places greater pressure upon such sites, unless further greenfield land is to be released for development."

As I have said, the local authority had already identified plenty of greenfield development space for developers, but it was not being brought forward-hence the pressure for development on garden land.

Of course, the pressure is not only on garden land. I was rather shocked to receive a letter from Strutt and Parker, which presumed that I owned the offices that I occupied in Belgravia street in Penzance. The letter told me that

"There is a strong demand from developers for both green and brown field sites",

and that Strutt and Parker were able to

"guide you through the planning system; co-ordinate other professional advisers in gaining planning permission and dealing with section 106 agreements; and consequently dispose of your property with the intention of"

optimising its value. Unfortunately, my landlady got hold of that information, and I was promptly turfed out of my office, which was turned into flats. The problem was that the car park that was available for the offices that I occupied had 10 spaces and that land is being developed as well. The parking pressures in that area are so intense for local people that adding further flats there without the provision of any further parking or amenity land is storing up serious problems. I certainly hope that the Minister is prepared to take that issue on board.

In dealing with all these issues, I want to spend a small amount of time concentrating on the need to be consistent in campaigns. I apologise for going on, but I have taken a number of interventions. I first became aware of the Conservatives' campaign when the local residents group in my constituency alerted me to an unsolicited letter from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells on House of Commons headed paper dated 17 May 2006, following a debate on his ten-minute Bill, saying:

"the Parliamentary rules give the Bill another chance on the 14 July. This is a precious opportunity for the Government to change its mind."

The implication of that perhaps led to the storing up of expectation among many constituents-perhaps even among people throughout the country-that a ten-minute Bill was likely to be passed by Parliament. A lot of Liberal Democrat Members agree with the proposal that the designation by the Conservatives of gardens as brownfield development land in 1985 should be withdrawn.

On 2 February 2007, the then shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Meriden, said during the Second Reading of her private Member's Bill, the Land Use (Gardens Protection etc) Bill:

"The only people who are not losing out from the rush to develop back gardens are the developers and land speculators. For them, England is literally becoming a treasure island."-[Hansard, 2 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 473.]

On 1 October 2007, at the Conservative party conference, the shadow housing spokesperson, Grant Shapps, said:

"I know that you share my concern over the practice of garden grabbing, so we'll change planning law to recognise that brownfield does not mean your neighbour's garden."

On 28 November 2008, following the defeat of the Conservative Earl Cathcart's amendment to the Planning Bill, Mr. Pickles was reported in The Daily Telegraph as saying:

"Labour's rules have given a green light for garden grabbing and rich pickings for developers...leading to leafy gardens being dug up and replaced with soulless and ugly blocks of flats...Our proposals would increase protection for gardens".

They say all that, but in my constituency in May 2007 the Conservative party headquarters applied for six flats in its own back garden. [Interruption.] Of course, it was not making the application, but a company made up of a former Conservative councillor and a prospective parliamentary candidate was. Earlier that year, the hon. Member for Meriden had said:

"Such applications are divisive, because they set neighbour against neighbour." -[Hansard, 2 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 473.]

Lo and behold, that application certainly did so, because the neighbours in that setting, in Alexandra road and Hawkins road in Penzance, were up in arms against that development and pointed out to the local Conservatives that the party had made a lot of claims to be the saviours of garden land. At the same time it was applying for planning permission to build in its own garden in a conservation area.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the planning application for the garden land at Alexandra house-the headquarters -is before Penwith district council. Given that all six Conservative councillors on the planning committee of Penrith district council will declare a pecuniary interest and take no part in the debate, is he saying that the remaining councillors, including Councillors Ruhrmund, Mates, Cook, Jack Dixon and Terry Tonkin-all Liberal Democrats-will somehow make a decision outside planning law that is improper, irregular or potentially unlawful? Does he believe in local democracy or not?

Andrew George: I absolutely believe in local democracy. I am not going to comment on the merits or otherwise of that particular planning application because it is up to the local authority and its planning committee to decide how it will determine it.

In fact, the hon. Gentleman invites me to point out that the planning application of May 2007 was withdrawn with a certain amount of red face on the part of the Conservatives. They assured local residents that they had apologised for it, and local residents felt satisfied at that point that they did not need to take any further action, but they drew the matter to my attention and I took it up with the planning department. I could have made political hay with that issue in the House and scored a lot of political points. However, I am interested in the protection of garden land, not turning such issues into a political dogfight. Once the application had been withdrawn, that was it as far as I was concerned, which is why, later on in March 2008, I was content to sponsor the Bill of the hon. Member for Meriden when requested. I felt that we must stand above party political tribalism and not attempt to make party political points on the issue.

I was happy to support the Conservatives' private Member's Bill introduced in March 2008, but imagine my disappointment-Mr. Jackson has just drawn attention to this-when I discovered that, during that time, the Conservatives had indirectly sold the land to a developer and that a planning application by that developer had come before the planning committee in November.

That application is about to be determined and, as I say, I am not going to comment on the merits of it. However, the point is that it is all very well masquerading as the saviour of garden land, but Conservative Front Benchers were informed by residents in my constituency that that was going on at the time and they received no response from them whatsoever. The Conservatives had backed down shamefacedly in June 2007 when it was pointed out to them that what had happened directly contradicted everything on which they had been campaigning.

Residents in Hawkins road and Alexandra road in my constituency are much put out by the way in which the issue has been managed because not only was the garden sold to a developer, but the Conservatives negotiated a clawback clause. That means that if the development goes ahead and the planning application is successful, the Conservative association will secure for itself up to nearly £250,000. We need to be careful that what we say in this House is carried out by our foot soldiers on the ground in our constituencies. It is a matter of deep embarrassment for the Conservatives nationally and locally that this should have happened. I put my faith in the hon. Member for Meriden and the Front-Bench team because I was prepared to turn a blind eye to the mistake made in May 2007 and sponsor their Bill. I feel that they have seriously let me down and destroyed the trust I had that what happened was simply a blip-a mistake that they had made at that stage. I admit to making political mistakes and I have been shown to be naive in trusting the Conservatives at that stage and allowing them to go ahead in that way.

Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative): I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman's objection is to every proposal for development, or just some proposals.

Andrew George: Every planning application should come forward on its own merits, and I am not debating the merits of one application over another. All I am saying is that that planning application was at one time considered unacceptable for that area. The residents were up in arms about it, it was withdrawn and an apology was given, but there has been an attempt to bring forward the development by the back door.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat): I apologise to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for not being present at the start of the debate, but I was attending a Public Bill Committee sitting that has only now ended. He is drawing attention to the fact that his constituents, and many others across the country, may be misled into believing that there has been a firm commitment and policy to act in a certain way. Individual cases might lead people to believe that things were done differently. The issue is not about the planning application, but about people seeking to make political capital out of a particular planning point. There is then a failure to address that at a local level

Bill Olner (Nuneaton, Labour): Order. The hon. Member for St. Ives has been very generous in giving way and has accepted nine interventions, but I remind hon. Members who wish to speak that I will call the first of the Front-Bench spokesmen at 12 o'clock.

Andrew George: I am grateful to you, Mr. Olner, for pointing that out to me and I apologise, but I have been attempting to be generous to hon. Members who wish to make points. I will now bring my remarks to a close.

It is all very well going through a rebranding process-I fear that the Conservatives see the world of politics merely as a marketing exercise-but politicians need genuinely to understand and accept the basis of the political claims they make. If they claim to be the saviours of garden land, they cannot at the same time be engaged in the type of activities I have just described. That example is not the only such incident. I do not know about London politics, but last night's Evening Standard reported: "Plans by the Mayor's London Development Agency to build 180 homes in Crystal Palace Park will be decided by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, it was announced today. Bromley council", which I understand is Conservative controlled, "approved the plan to build in the Grade II-listed park last month. Boris Johnson added his support in spite of his election manifesto pledge to protect green spaces."

I look forward to the winding-up speeches and to hearing the views of all parties on the debate. There are issues of significant substance that I hope the Minister will address, particularly the review and the need to back up those local authorities that try to protect the integrity of their garden spaces, many of which are still under threat, even in the current market downturn. I hope that he will take those remarks on board.

• Lorely Burt (Solihull, Liberal Democrat): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend Andrew George on securing this extremely important debate. The key issue is whether back gardens are designated as brownfield or greenfield areas. The Government have, to a degree, attempted to address that problem, and I welcome that. Following PPG3, the Government introduced PPS3, which gives local authorities some powers to separate gardens from wider brownfield development targets, but that does not stop developers, because local authorities can be overridden by external inspectors who do not have sympathy with or understanding of local areas, feelings and circumstances.

Mr. Dismore has kindly stayed to tell us that he is introducing a private Member's Bill on this matter. I look forward to that, and I hope that it has more success than mine did in 2005. My neighbour, Mrs. Spelman, introduced a similar Bill in 2007, as did Greg Clark in 2006. I am encouraged to hear that Members of all three main parties are introducing such Bills. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has discussed, although my private Member's Bill encompassed parkland, the hon. Member for Meriden has declined to do the same with hers, because her local authority of Solihull, which we share, has sold off parkland for development in two parks-Tudor Grange and Shirley parks. That development involves the, to my mind, near criminal destruction of a 350-year-old ring of oaks.

The problem is holistic. The whole nature of areas is being changed by overdevelopment. The forthcoming Bill is very welcome, because in previous debates on this issue Labour Members have criticised attempts to change the designation, saying rightly that people need homes, including affordable homes, but selling off large back gardens in reasonably wealthy areas does not help to resolve that problem. Indeed, hon. Members have mentioned the careful building of particular numbers of dwellings so that the threshold at which affordable housing must be built is not exceeded.

Valuable wildlife corridors are being lost, and there is increased pressure on local amenities and increased flooding in many areas. Back gardens provide natural drainage, and having more houses puts too much pressure on sewerage and drainage systems that were never designed to service the number of families and properties that they now service. Hon. Members have mentioned the problems that are being created with roads and parking. Above all, perhaps, the whole character of local areas is being changed.

Is all that a big problem? The Government have stated that 72 per cent. of new homes are built on brownfield sites. Those welcome statistics show how that figure has increased over time. However, we need to look underneath them to see how much of that 72 per cent. is back garden development. The Government's figures state that just less than a quarter of such properties are built on previously residential land, but that could be just the tip of the iceberg. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells carried out a study on this matter. According to the Government's statistics, 40 per cent. of new housing is on existing residential sites and garden plots, but on investigation he found that the figure is closer to 70 per cent. That is a cause for great concern.

The picture is stark over many areas of the country. In my own area of Solihull we have just re-fought an application that keeps being made on Streetsbrook road for 10 apartments on two properties. We lost an appeal over Fowgay hall-admittedly, it was an unlovely property-on the site of which now stand 14 flats. It is a 0.17 acre plot, every inch of which has been built on, with the car park having to go underground. It is so out of kilter with the area that it beggars belief that it was approved on appeal. Builders wear down local communities by persistently reapplying. They make an application knowing that it will not be accepted. They then re-submit and re-submit, causing tremendous stress and worry in local communities, and in the end they slip in just under the bar. And that is the end of a happy residential area and, often, of its character.

The current economic situation might well have some bearing. The demand for flats has been slowing for a considerable period. However, more important, the construction industry is not on its knees but on its back. If the Minister were to introduce good, properly planned developments-not back garden grabs, but shovel-ready planning applications to build homes, especially affordable homes-he would certainly hear no objections from the Liberal Democrat Benches. PPS17 requires local authorities to provide all types of open spaces, including parks and gardens. We need properly planned communities. The Government should consider strengthening legislation to facilitate a much more holistic approach to our planning system. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said, local communities need a much greater say in decisions affecting the character of their area.

I have three suggestions that I hope the Government will consider. On the ability of developers to continue re-submitting applications, should we not have a "three strikes and you're out" system to prevent the constant worry?

Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley, Labour): Two!

Lorely Burt: I do not know; I leave that to the Government. For many communities, three will be a very welcome change. On one occasion, we had 19 in Solihull.

Could local authorities have more power to make a final determination? There is a problem with appeal officers looking at an area and going against the will of a large body of local opinion. We are not talking about nimbyism; what we really want is power to the people: subsidiarity-decision-making at the lowest point for the people who are affected. We understand that local authorities may make inappropriate decisions, but could the conditions for overturning those appeals be looked at again to take into consideration local people's desire to have some say about the local environment in which they live?