Back Garden Development

Boasts by the Government that it is meeting its target for brownfield housing are a "sham" with the figures massaged by "back garden" building, a Conservative MP claimed today.

Greg Clark, Tory member for Tunbridge Wells, said new figures showed that the Government can only hit its 60% target if it includes dwellings built in leafy residential areas.

Family homes in the suburbs were being pulled down by developers and often replaced with high density flats, he said.

Mr Clark said the disclosure "made a mockery" of Ministers' claims, since most people assumed that "brownfield sites" referred to derelict industrial land - not gardens that have been "grabbed" for development by builders.

Mr Clark said: "The Government has delayed for weeks in publishing these figures - it is now clear why they were so reticent about them.

"The figures show that only by classifying gardens as brownfield sites can the Government claim that it is meeting its own housing target.

"The public is being deceived. Most people assume that when the Government talks about building on brownfield sites it means ex-industrial land, like disused factories and railway sidings.

"They have no idea that much of it is actually beautiful, green, environmentally important gardens."

Mr Clark said Commons questions revealed previously unpublished figures showing that 15% of all new dwellings are being built on existing residential plots including gardens.

The Government has a target that 60% of new housing should be built on "brownfield" land.

Ministers claimed in January 2006 that 72% of new housing was now provided on brownfield sites.

But the latest figures showed that without including building on existing houses and gardens, only 57% of new development would be on brownfield land - missing the 60% target.

Mr Clark added: "All around the country perfectly decent family houses are being demolished by developers so that they can cram high density housing on to garden land. This makes a mockery of a planning system which should be prioritising genuine brownfield sites for development, not gardens.

"Up until today the Government was denying that garden grab developments were even happening. A minister told Parliament four weeks ago that 'the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has rebutted strongly the allegations that garden grabbing is even going on. We do not take the accusations seriously'."

Mr Clark said: "These figures reveal the truth - garden grabbing certainly is going on and the Government is reliant on it to meet its target."

The MP is currently promoting a private members' bill to remove gardens from the official definition of brownfield land.

He said the situation was likely to be even worse than the Government admitted.

A large proportion of brownfield dwelling is built on land officially classified as "vacant" rather than residential, concealing the fact that at least some vacant land was previously residential, for example, created by the demolition of houses, or by splitting gardens into new building plots.

"The Government's admission that 15% of new houses are built on residential land is bad enough, but the true figure could be much higher than that.

"If you survey recent planning approvals, as I have done, you find that the real level of back garden development is well over 15%. In some areas it is over 70%.

"Our towns and cities are losing precious green space and whole neighbourhoods are being changed out of all recognition. Local authorities are powerless to intervene because these developments are officially described as brownfield.

"That must change before more damage is done," Mr Clark said.

Date: 24th May 2006
Source: 24 Dash