Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Buying and selling property

Stop developers grabbing your garden!

Sabuhi Mir
by Lovemoney Staff Sabuhi Mir on 14 September 2010  |  Comments 31 comments

England has seen a phenomenal rise in garden grabbing. What is it, and why has it left local communities disgruntled?

Stop developers grabbing your garden!

‘Nimbys’ - the Not In My Back Yard brigade - have suffered from a bad press in recent years, though the truth is that the relaxation of planning laws in the last decade have proved a real blight on the lives of homeowners.

A once idyllic setting of trees, birds and greenery is suddenly transformed into ugly, uniform brickwork - and that’s not counting the months of noise and air pollution from building projects. The resistance to new housing in back gardens can no longer be dismissed as a kneejerk reaction to change; residents are now justified in their concerns that the environment is being permanently plundered for a quick profit for developers and those selling gardens.

The scale of garden grabbing

Recent figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government show that the percentage of new homes built on previously residential land - including back gardens - has more than doubled to 25% since 1997.

Related blog post

These new homes are also being built in desirable residential rural areas of England which include: South Buckinghamshire, the Chilterns and Sevenoaks and prime residential areas of London like Kensington & Chelsea, Wandsworth and Kingston-upon-Thames.

For instance in South Buckinghamshire, the number of new homes built on back gardens in 1997 was 43% compared to 72% in 2009. While in Kingston-upon-Thames the number of new homes built in 1997 was 9%, but has risen to an astonishing 50% in 2009.

Government action

However, the Government has shown signs of taking action against this practice.

In June of this year, Greg Clark, the Decentralisation Minister said that planning rules will be changed to give councils new powers to prevent unwanted "garden grabbing" by taking gardens out of the brownfield category, thus making it harder for builders to get planning permission.

Clark said: "For years local people were powerless to do anything about the blight of garden grabbing as the character of their neighbourhoods was destroyed and their wishes ignored. Building on gardens robs communities of green breathing space, safe places for children to play and havens for urban wildlife."

Clark said it was “ridiculous” that gardens were classified in the same group as derelict factories and disused railway sidings, and added that now the coalition government has changed the classification of garden land, councils and communities “will no longer have their decisions constantly overruled."

Will it make a difference?

These plans have been met with a mixed response by industry figures and environmental groups.

John Fitzsimons looks at how to work out what offer to make on a property.

For example, the British Property Federation (BPF) noted that encouraging more local consultation on, and support for, development is obviously a good thing, but warned that unless the planning changes are implemented sensibly, there is a risk of the supply of new homes being choked off.

I think the BPF raises a valid point: if planning is restricted by these proposals by the coalition government, where will these new homes be built?

On the other hand, Dr Simon Thornton Wood, director of science and learning at the Royal Horticultural Society agrees wholeheartedly with the coalition government's proposals: "We welcome any measure that protects the vital resource we know gardens to be. Gardens like parks, are the green lungs of cities, improving air quality, controlling air temperature and flood risk and providing a haven for wildlife.”

What can you do?

Despite these steps from the coalition government, it will take months and even years for these measures to filter down to local communities and neighbourhoods. So what can you do if you are about to become a victim of “garden grabbing”?

The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF)  and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has recently issued a joint guide entitled: “How to challenge bad developments in court.” Some of the points are listed below:

  • Seek legal expertise.
  • Establish whether you have a case.
  • Act promptly.
  • Encourage other interested parties, like your neighbours, to get involved.
  • Carefully consider whether the risks involved, especially costs, are worth the potential benefits.

The ELF and the CPRE recommend that once you know that building work may start on land near to you whether it is in your back garden or in an adjacent back garden, contact your local environmental group or one of the statutory agencies, for example the Environment Agency, English Heritage or Natural England.

Recent question on this topic

You should also try to use the local media to gain public support for your arguments - this pressure could force a turnaround in the planning application process. You can also contact your local councillor to register your concerns or take it one step further you can contact your MP.

In addition to this, if you are buying a house or a flat, make sure that your solicitor has checked all current and ongoing planning applications.

There have been cases where environmental campaign groups and local communities have been successful in preventing building work going ahead:  the CPRE’s Oxfordshire branch successfully applied to quash a regional planning policy calling for building on green belt land around Oxford; villagers in Cornwall formed a company and proved that the local council had not properly analysed the damage a proposed development would cause to the environment; in Redcar, local people won the right to designate land as a village green and thereby prevent the development of 300 houses.

More: The best and worst types of property to own | 17 million Brits make this mistake

At lovemoney.com, you can research all the best deals yourself using our online mortgage service, or speak directly to a whole-of-market, fee-free  broker. Call 0800 804 4045 or email mortgages@lovemoney.com for more help.

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (31)

  • Ed Bowsher
    Love rating 79
    Ed Bowsher said

    I grew up in South Buckinghamshire where, as Sabuhi says, there has been a large amount of development in gardens. It's a shame as many roads are much uglier than they were 30 years ago.

    That said, it's not just the planners who should be blamed. It's the people who sell their back gardens. I've heard of people selling their house to a builder who plans to make money by building one or more homes in the garden. Then the seller complains that he/she can't find a new home with decent-sized garden!

    Aaargh!!!

    Ed

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • DominicStockford
    Love rating 11
    DominicStockford said

    Maybe I am really, really stupid - but surely the simplest way to stop someone building in your own garden is not to sell it to them...

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • c3menzies
    Love rating 14
    c3menzies said

    Couldn't agree more. There wouldn't be any building on back gardens if people didn't sell their back gardens to developers. And planners have to work within the law and, if they have targets for brownfield builiding, financial penalties for not achieving targets and gardens count as brownfield then it could well cost them money not to allow building (let alone the costs of going to appeal). How many council tax payers would vote for that?

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nicsta
    Love rating 3
    nicsta said

    In June 2010 The Condem Gov made an amendment

    soon after getting into power to one of its core planning policies - Policy PPS3 which removed ‘garden land’ from the definition of previously developed land.

    This has had a profound effect on the redevelopment potential of these type of

    properties with large gardens anyway.

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • BASSCHASER
    Love rating 1
    BASSCHASER said

    Oh dear, another non story from love money!

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • gez
    Love rating 8
    gez said

    Certainly a poorly titled story. No developer is grabbing land. They are being sold the land (and hopefully at a reasonable price) by homeowners.

    With the price of housing, the difficulties for our children to get a foot on the housing ladder and with poor investment returns LoveMoney should be encouraging homeowners with gardens that can be developed to make the best use of their assets!

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • gez
    Love rating 8
    gez said

    Maybe LoveMoney could you draft an article regarding the regional values of parcels of land and the pros and cons of selling 'options' dependent upon planning permission.

    This will help ensure that a fair price is reached for any owners approached by developers wishing to maximise the potential.

    Now that would make interesting reading!

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 274
    oldhenry said

    It is the human condition at work- GREED, everyone has their price ( so they say) and the developer will make a fast buck- several million probably.

    There are too many people chasing nice homes. Unles the UK increases in size ( especially the Southern part) how on earth is the population to be housed?

    BTW I now live in a Conservation Area that was designed to stop this sort of action, so get your area conserved- quickly.

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • RedundantHippie
    Love rating 14
    RedundantHippie said

    This comes too late for me and the village I live in! We have many classic examples of how to ruin a once picturesque village by "In-filling" new property between exisiting cottages. The old cottages were 17th and 18th century red brick built with large gardens in the traditional "Cottage Garden" style. Now we have modern boxes with plastic windows squeezed in between them in many places. This includes the Cottage next to mine, it was bought by the "get rich quick" brigade in 2006. What followed was the stuff of nightmares where the exisiting cottage was turned into two separate dwelling by extending it in two directions. Then roughly one third of the land was flogged off to a developer who originally wanted to build three "Town Houses" (yes - in an ancient village!). Thankfully this was turned down by Planning but they did get full permission for a four bedroomed monstrous carbunclle that took two years to complete. If we carry on like this the vilage will be turned into a new town estate that no one likes. Call me a nimby if you like - this is no way to develop Rural England!

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • 99sparky
    Love rating 1
    99sparky said

    Houses at the back of mine have been gradually bought, split and developed and we now have a lovely view of 5 bed detached houses which really don't fit in with the surrounding buildings, in what were very pleasant tree filled gardens. These trees were felled on a sunday, so of course no one could complain to the Council till it was too late on the monday. Naturally there were plenty of backhanders to the planning department to get the plans through. The last two houses to be built have such small gardens, overlook all the surrounding houses, and are themselves overlooked, that the greedy (very unpleasant) developer can't sell them, especially in the current market. Very luckily, I have managed to buy the last two gardens that he needed to get a full set - these have now been planted with vegetables (self sufficiency), a good variety of fruit trees,(fruit pies and wine) and will soon be receiving 18 lleyandii conifers along the boundary to block the view of these monstrosities. As I'm a tree surgeon by trade, these will be correctly maintained and not allowed to get too big - about gutter height should be fine!

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldestfool
    Love rating 0
    oldestfool said

    The incentive to sell gardens would be removed if developers had to PAY for planning permissions. That way the garden would become more valuable as a garden and not as a building site. The problem and solution is explained very clearly at : www.betterhomes4all.org.uk

    Happy reading and campaigning!

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • robins
    Love rating 0
    robins said

    We bought our house in 1986 it remains unregistered, the previous owner retained one third of the land, she died leaving it to her children. in 2006, without our knowledge the son of the original owner sold the land to a developer. The only problem is that he persuaded them that his mother had retained two thirds. The developer then got this registered at the Land Registry purely on the strength of a declaration by the son, no conveyance was produced. All of this without our knowledge. We lost half our garden. Land Registry admit they screwed up, The Independent Complaints reviewer to the Land Registry has roundly codemned them but the land has houses on it now and the only way we can get any redress is to take the Land Registry to court, something we cannot afford. Incidentally we are not talking about a big house here, it was just a normal semi with a 340 foot garden. The Land Registry were totally incompetent but refuse to compensate us for their cock up

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Crissa
    Love rating 2
    Crissa said

    Some of you are making it sound so simple. It sounds obvious- don't sell your gardens.  The problem is gez- land developers ARE putting pressure on people to buy thier land/ gardens. It may suit some - but is it fair to keep pressuring senior citizens, or indeed anyone, who have firmly said NO in wirting several times in a year. An elderly relative of mine has a large garden in a conservation area, and he has taken exceptional care of it. The offers keep changing, when he says no, e.g. from 5 to 3 small houses. (They would have to be very small!) Whatever- they ARE TRYING to "grab" property, in that they won't leave him in peace, in spite of his very definite response opposing them.

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Wellsprungalice
    Love rating 20
    Wellsprungalice said

    Crissa, your relative needs to gather the names of those making unwanted offers and make a formal complaint to the police, emphasising that they are not taking no for an answer, that what they are doing is distressing him, and ask that they be talked to about the offence of 'behaviour likely to cause alarm and distress'. You can support him in making this complaint. A call from the police should stop this unwanted attention. 

    Report on 14 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 149
    MK22 said

    Robins makes a good point. You need to make absolutely sure your property is registered to you at the Land Registry. But I am puzzled also by Robins story. In recent cases I am aware of where people have a legal conveyance that showed they owned a certain area of unregistered land and the Land Registery makes a mistake, the Land Registery has had to correct it and so the builder has been forced to back down. It would appear that robins owns the land these houses are built on and therefore at the very least can charge whatever ground rent robins likes for it. It is quite possible that the builder has caused criminal trepass in building on the land and is certainly responsible for vandalism so send in the police!

    But the others are right. Don't sell your back garden! Or if you feel really presurised say yes at a rate of £20million a hectare.

    Report on 15 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Savvy chic
    Love rating 20
    Savvy chic said

    I completely agree about the misleading title. No one could build on peoples' back gardens if the people concerened didn't want them to!

    Report on 15 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ksg
    Love rating 1
    ksg said

    This is a subject I feel very strongly about. I agree that people shouldn't sell their gardens, but I understand that some feel forced to in the current economic climate.  Others do it as we live in a 'me' world these days, with little consideration given to those around us.

    And what about those who live in flats, where the freeholder holds all the cards (unless you have the money to go to court)? After all, covenants in the freehold mean nothing in planning terms.

    Gardens as brownfield sites will always be popular to developers. What is better: a garden which has services through it or nearby and clean, open land; or a site which needs services brought in, possibly from a good distance away, perhaps a lot of old buildings to clear and potential soil contamination from goodness knows what?

    I understand the need for housing (although Councils/the Planning Inspectorate/Government targets often don't seem to consider whether the local infrastructure can support so many additional properties) and I can see that the current law is OK if you have a good-sized garden and development would not affect anyone else. But this is rarely the case and anyone who buys a home should have the right to the life they expected in it, without finding several years later that they are now going to be overlooked by some eyesore and have their property so badly devalued that they now can't move even if they wanted to.

    If the Coalition Government get this through, and continue with policies that support the 'little people', then they get my backing, irrespective of their party politics.

    I only hope it goes through in time for my story to have a (partially) happy ending.

    Report on 15 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nicsta
    Love rating 3
    nicsta said

    @robins that's awful. You have a case that would win, surely? You can't afford to sue fair enough but if I were you; I'd be ringing round solicitors to find one who will fight your case no win no fee. 

    Report on 15 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • richmoll
    Love rating 26
    richmoll said

    99sparky. When you say that Naturally there were plenty of backhanders to the planning department to get the plans through, is this proven because it sounds libellous to me. Planners are public sector workers with professional qualifications and you accusation is outrageous. I bet you daren't accuse a specific planner of that and reveal your identity.

    Report on 15 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Thirdman
    Love rating 10
    Thirdman said

    I don't know how it works in England, but in Scotland the neighbours can put in an objection to the plan. Not that it always gets up held, but this is looked into by the local planning department.

    Also, if there really is a need for more houses surely it is better to build on gardens than in actual unspoilt countryside, or useable farmland? Specifics would need to be looked at.

    I'm very critical of people complaining about articles, but what does this have to do with money? Will there be a follow up titled "Getting the most Money from Back Garden Sales"? Preparing the ground, getting the services in place, having planning permission etc...

    Report on 15 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Chuckwallah
    Love rating 23
    Chuckwallah said

    Classifying gardens as "brownfield" was, I believe, the brainchild of John Pescott who seemed to have a big chip on his shoulder about "leafy boroughs". Both the Lib-Dems and the Tories tried to introduce bills to get this changed but were defeated by the Newlabour government.

    When my wife was a local councillor she spent a great deal of time helping distressed householders to organise opposition to back garden developments but even when planning permission was refused locally it would often be granted on appeal to the (Newlabour) government inspector.

    Developers put a lot of effort into identifying a likely candidate in a row of houses and then making an offer so big that it can only be described as a "loss leader". They then tell the immediate neighbours that they will be building on the land in such a way that it seems that permission has already been granted. Most people are pretty ignorant of planning law and believe these lies, making them more likely to sell up. Once the developer has his hands on a couple of gardens the domino effect takes over.

    Report on 16 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 149
    MK22 said

    The ideal position is to be in the middle of the row, then without you it's worthless so you basically write your own cheque and get the developer to sign it. You can then move somewhere better on the proceeds.

    Report on 16 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    As a first time buyer and land reformist I find the article and comments above quite interesting.

    It's pretty clear to me that everyone posting already has some property and perhaps that's why they're missing a key point: people are selling their gardens so that more (smaller) properties can be built and usually in areas which already have a high build density.

    We have the smallest new builds in Europe. We are the most over-populated country in Europe and we are now cutting up what little residential land there is so that we can build even more even smaller housing in the overcrowded areas in which we live.

    God I hate this country.

    Report on 16 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    FoE,

    In the long term the problem is over-population. This country actively encourages people to breed, whether it's by giving tax credits to the well off or by supporting, nay encouraging, dole-scroungers to breed by upping their benefits and by giving them bigger & better houses.

    Then there's the medium-term where we have a grossly unfair tax system which rewards those who first brought before the mid-90's and those wealthy enough to own more than one property, not to mention one which discourages house building and efficent land use*.

    Additionally workforce mobility has also been suppressed, allowing employment centres (mainly in the south and south-east) to form outside of which there is little prospect of well paid employment.

    And now, in the short term we have massive government debt, massive private sector debt, over-priced housing, people driven to selling off bits of their land though a dire need for money and a clear unwillingness of any of the 3 main parties to do anything whatsoever about it, for fear of upsetting the homeowning population.

    Now like many others I'm young, I'm well educated and my skills are economically important. Why should I live in a shoebox, with a 25-year mortgage while at the same time having to pay for the spend-thrift ways of the last generation as well as their pensions, their nice cars and their big houses?

    Now don't get me wrong, this country has some nice features and if you want try to protect this "green and pleasant land" then by all means do so, but not with my money.

    I'm off.

    * Land Value Taxation would encourage better land use and help suppress house prices. Put very simply, it costs the about the same to build a house anywhere in the UK so the difference in prices is due to a location premium.

    If we were to therefore drop council tax & business rates and instead tax the price of land (house price - cost of rebuild) then people and businesses would be encouraged to re-distribute and what little land there is would be used far more efficiently.

    Report on 16 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    I may of touched a nerve. Again.

    Well let's see. Back in the 1960's we had low house prices because (a) build rates (then mandated by government) were higher, (b) housing was expensive to own (rates, SDLT etc) and (c) the population was smaller.

    Since then we've had (amongst other things):

    - Abolition of laws relating to a property's value / land's value.

    - Capital gains tax on properties relaxed.

    - Incredibly generous treatment of second home 'holiday let' owners.

    - Control and management of house building put in private hands.

    - Massive increase in population.

    - Generous tax treatment of buy-to-let speculation.

    - Weakening of laws which protect tenants.

    - Weakening of laws which protect green spaces and ensure minimum property sizes.

    Now while you may personally be an economic and environmental saint, most people aren't. In fact from experience they just don't care. Now why should I have to suffer because of their actions? You might be aright, being able to capitalise on the golden years of yore but the country which I'm faced with is very different to the one which you enjoyed when you were my age.

    I suggest that if you really want to protect this country of parasites then you need to start lobbying for change. Good luck though - both Labour and the Tories still support (and were the originators of) the polices which are causing the problems today and you only need to look at what happened during the LibDim's pre-election party conference to see how serious their membership is about fairness and "progressive" policies.

    As for me, I'm learning a language and hopefully I'll be leaving this place within the next few years. After all, despite this new government the massive wealth transfer continues to take place and although there are a few people, like yourself, who seem to have the right ideas and maybe even have the money to effect some change, there are far too few of you.

    And nobody's listening.

    Report on 16 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Chuckwallah
    Love rating 23
    Chuckwallah said

    LandOf Confusion - your land tax idea is not going to work. Rich people will still be able to live, and buy 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes wherever they want. Rural workers will still be forced out of their pretty country villages and into the inner city because of high housing costs.

    MK22 - I hope you don't live anywhere near me.

    Report on 17 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Chuckwallah,

    You seem to have missed my point and made a common misunderstanding at the same time. For the avoidance of doubt let me explain:

    Firstly Land Value Tax is based on the idea that the same property costs the same regardless of where it's built. The difference in price between two identical properties, which are located in different areas is the site premium or amount you pay for the land (i.e. the land's value).

    Land Value Taxation is not meant to stop wealthy people from owning large areas of land but rather it's intent is to ensure that what little land we have is used efficently and should wealthy people want to throw their money around then so be it, they will pay more tax as a result.

    Another very useful feature of this form of taxation is that we can favour local people over second home owners by discounting the tax which locals have to pay. Now while I agree that this won't stop second home ownership, it will make things a lot fairer which is why it's sometimes described as the "almost perfect tax".

    And just before I go I should mention one other advantage: Land registration.

    Currently there are large areas of the UK which are not registered at all. Most of it belongs to historical estates and should an LVT be brought in, these would have to be registered and the owners taxed appropriately.

    Report on 17 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DominicStockford
    Love rating 11
    DominicStockford said

    Other unregistered sites belong to such as churches - the majority of them simply cannot afford to register it. As Charities they should clearly be left out of such land taxation.

    My church is one such and we would basically have to sell the land in order to be able to afford to register it. As for paying a tax on simply owning what we own, why not have a biro tax? That would bring in far more and prevent many applications for building because developers wouldn't want to have to pay to register their biros with which they sign them...

    More seriously, this idea needs very careful consideration otherwise people will suffer exponentially.

    Report on 18 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Sillyness aside, I see no reason why charities can't be granted exceptions as they do under current tax law.

    And as for your comment "As for paying a tax on simply owning what we own", the point is that a country's infrastructure is owned commonly (i.e. by the population). Land Value Tax is therefore a rent paid in return for denying others the right to use that land.

    And additionally is it fair that my taxes should go into making an area better only for the residence of that area to disproportinately benefit though higher land values?

    Report on 18 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Savvy chic
    Love rating 20
    Savvy chic said

    Thirdman, are you aware of the new "Permitted development" which doesn't even need Planning permission?

    I'm in Scotland, too and my Pakistani neighbours have had a huge extension built with a high wall cutting light out of my back garden and it falls under "Permitted development".

    Report on 18 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • kaff26
    Love rating 0
    kaff26 said

    Savvy chic - what has your neighbours' nationality got to do with their extension?

    Report on 20 September 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (2.98% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.9% to 2.98% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (2.47% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.5% to 2.47% (T&Cs apply)

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels