I thought "garden grabbing" had stopped?

harrup

I'm genuinly puzzled.

Only today I saw three of those yellow notices on garden gates, whereby the owner announced the intention to erect a dwelling in their garden. Curious, I checked online with our local Borough ...and blow me down, in EVERY case, the plans for the intended "dwelling" was a whopping great 4 - 5 bedroom house.

Now, this wouldn't be so surprising or demoralising if said gardens were HUGE. The proverbial small bungalow surrounded by an acre or 2 of land. But far from it. In each case, the existing house had an average sized garden. Say, just over 1/4 acre, but certainly less than 1/2.

I'm confused - I thought the current government had amended Prescott's hair-brained idea of declaring all gardens brownfield sites and garden grabbing had thus ceased?

It's a real shame that this has continued. Years ago you couldn't even extend your property without jumping through a gazillion hoops and chances were high that the whole idea was nixed by the planning office. In contrast, now you see some earstwhile lovely houses uncomfortably squeezed and flanked by enormous houses to either side. The former owners don't care- they moved on clutching a large bundle of cash. But I've seen entire roads been ruined by this folly.

There is something deeply incongrous about a large house with a tiny garden. In a country setting, anyway. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny - the proud new owner then has a spacious house, but has to whisper when sitting on the terrace in order to not disturb the neighbours peace?

Meanwhile 7 sheep - yes, I counted them- contentedly grazed on 5 acres of farmland. Something sure ain't right here....

So was it just a loose "we really ought to stop this one day" proposal to stop garden grabbing? Or are those measures now really kicking in and people flog whatever garden they have as fast as they can?

Loopgames

Is that what garden grabbing is?

I thought it literally meant nicking a bit of your neighbours garden not building on your own garden. Am confused.

Also i thought a quarter acre is huge! Shows how deprived i am.

Does that include corner properties when they add on a tiny new build that looks ghastly hamging off the end of a row of victorian terraces? I agree kill of the practice it does spoil the neighbourhood. At the same time there is a demand for these extra homes in an established neighbourhood so markets usually dictate unless legislation stops it.

Gromitt

I thought the same thing. Around here, there is a number of houses built with a park behind them. You can clearly tell that some of them have extended their gardens beyond the boundary, but nobody seems to care. I thought this was what 'garden grabbing' was.

tbs624

Nope, garden grabbing is as the OP describes. It's building on previous "green land" , ie the gardens attached to an existing property.

Sounds like your neighbours are "park grabbing" Gromitt and no doubt in time they'll want to claim adverse possession

gravitytolls

Presumably due to the current government 'reducing red tape' around planning laws, to allow developers to take advantage of any nice spot available to make a quick buck.

Davesnave

harrup wrote: »

Meanwhile 7 sheep - yes, I counted them- contentedly grazed on 5 acres of farmland. Something sure ain't right here....

Depends. There'd be room for another 30, but maybe the farmer was waiting till the next market, after which he'd hope to add them.

When it comes to building on 5 acres, it's 50 houses and no sheep.

However, since large suburban gardens are now considered pretty good wildlife habitats, there's a down-side to infill that goes beyond aesthetics.

Brown field sites are clearly the way to go, except that they tend to be in places like Rotherham, rather than Rothampsted.:(

olias

To the OP - I don't know where you live, but 1/4 to 1/2 acre garden is HUGE!!!! Almost the size of a small paddock. Well big enough to support another dwelling provided the infrastructure and access is there to support it.

Olias

harrup

olias wrote: »

To the OP - I don't know where you live, but 1/4 to 1/2 acre garden is HUGE!!!! Almost the size of a small paddock. Well big enough to support another dwelling provided the infrastructure and access is there to support it.

Olias

Seriously? You think 1/4 acre is HUGE? I don't mean that in a confrontational "you must be kidding me" way....I'm just taken aback by our differing sense of what constitutes "huge" in terms of garden size.

The point is, if you build a substantial sized dwelling on that 1/4 acre of land - there is literally nothing left bar a small patio area. The footprint of the dwelling is too big. Meaning you then have a house..and that's it. Forget about kids being able to kick a ball around, having a game of badminton, grow a few plants, that sort of thing. Never mind the issue of enjoying a bit of privacy and allowing your neighbours the same.

Plus, it is a matter of proportions, no? A BIG house - unless it's a town house - with a minute garden looks ...well, silly. I could be wrong, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that this is what people aspire to when they are trading up.

phoebe1989seb

Completely agree with Harrup that garden grabbing should stop. Our last house was a gorgeous part timber-framed, part old herringbone brick, part rendered 5 bed Tudor house that had been dismantled in the earlier part of the 20th century then rebuilt with Arts & Crafts additions on another semi-rural site some 40+ miles away. It was re-erected opposite a village green and had a large wrap-around garden with orchard and what was reputedly the first outdoor swimming pool in the county.

In the 1980s the then owner tore down the orchard to build a (horrible) bungalow and a few years later (late 1990s) sold the original house to someone else who proceeded to build another bungalow where the swimming pool (long gone) had once stood. By the time we bought the house in 2007 the only garden that remained, whilst still wrapping around the house, was miniscule in relation to the size of the property - at its deepest now being only a maximum of 25'! A whole sea of ugly bungalows had grown up around it between the 1950s and the present day and the village green had also been built on. Unfortunately the house wasn't listed despite its age (and the fact it had a wondeful characterful interior), so the previous owners were able to get away with this sacrilege

princeofpounds

Garden grabbing is as described by the OP.

This has nothing to do with the new planning policy that's being developed. Whilst the aim of that is to be slightly more liberal, garden grabbing is one of the few things it is LESS liberal on. Although again like the loosening of restrictions I think people will find there will be less practical impact than is talked about.

This section of the OP's post pretty much sums it up for me:

There is something deeply incongrous about a large house with a tiny garden. In a country setting, anyway. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny - the proud new owner then has a spacious house, but has to whisper when sitting on the terrace in order to not disturb the neighbours peace?

Meanwhile 7 sheep - yes, I counted them- contentedly grazed on 5 acres of farmland. Something sure ain't right here....

The fact is that (unless you a a big developer with brown envelopes) it's nigh on impossible to get planning permission on a piece of field.

And there simply aren't that many true brownfield sites around in most towns, and where there are they are rarely available to small builders because the developer with the skills and finance to build 40 slavebox flats is always going to outbid you.

Whilst garden grabbing isn't ideal, it's a product of the artificial restraints of our planning system. We can't have it all ways. Either we protect green fields, or we protect gardens, or we ban individuals from building homes.

Garden grabbing isn't pretty, but when people own land they should have a reasonable amount of freedom to use it, and sometimes that includes building. Gardens aren't 'held in trust' for the community, they are private spaces.

JQ.

harrup wrote: »

Seriously? You think 1/4 acre is HUGE? I don't mean that in a confrontational "you must be kidding me" way....I'm just taken aback by our differing sense of what constitutes "huge" in terms of garden size.

The point is, if you build a substantial sized dwelling on that 1/4 acre of land - there is literally nothing left bar a small patio area. The footprint of the dwelling is too big. Meaning you then have a house..and that's it. Forget about kids being able to kick a ball around, having a game of badminton, grow a few plants, that sort of thing. Never mind the issue of enjoying a bit of privacy and allowing your neighbours the same.

Plus, it is a matter of proportions, no? A BIG house - unless it's a town house - with a minute garden looks ...well, silly. I could be wrong, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that this is what people aspire to when they are trading up.

Really ??? Half an acre for a house is huge.

So by your calcs a house will take most of a quarter acre plot leaving only a patio area, say 75% of the plot then. A quarter of an acre is 11,000 sq ft, that's a house with a footprint of 8,250 sq ft, at say 2.5 storeys, that's a house of 20,600 sq ft. That's not a big house, that's a 12 bed mansion worthy of MTV Cribbs.

The average home in the UK is 1,000 sq ft, so a plot size of 500 sq ft. So, on your quarter acre plot the average UK home would occupy just 4.5% of the plot.

So yes, a quarter of an acre is a huge plot in the UK. I'm sure if you're in a rural location quarter of an acre is quite normal, but as the majority of the population live in large towns and cities it is most definitely not the norm.