I thought "garden grabbing" had stopped?

harrup

princeofpounds wrote: »

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.

I don't disagree with a single sentence above....but what I'm grappling with is the polarized views and approach to building in/on gardens or anywhere else. Not your view per se, I stress to add, but that of....whichever governmental department is in charge of building & planning.

Why is it inevitably a black or white approach? Why does common sense and responsability of what is left behind seemingly never enter the planning approval equasion?

Do ALL fields have to be protected at infinitum? If so, for what? Anyone who has ever flown across the country knows that we have LOTS of fields. Empty, unproductive fields are not an "endangered" resource. Really.

Do ALL gardens lend themselves to be developed just because SOME undeniably do? Is it not a matter of size and amount and/or magnitude of development? What I find particularly mind boggling, the same garden that is now being green-lit for erection of several dwelings couldn't obtain a planning permission for a small extension a few years ago!

All or nothing. Always. Invariably followed by "with the advantage of hindsight we now feel that....". We ought to demand that those in charge of planning have "intelligence, prudence & common sense of foresight" not merely weepy hindsight.

Sorry, I digressed.

Davesnave

harrup wrote: »

Do ALL fields have to be protected at infinitum? If so, for what? Anyone who has ever flown across the country knows that we have LOTS of fields. Empty, unproductive fields are not an "endangered" resource. Really.

It's probably acceptable to build on some agricutural land, but I don't think you should make assumptions about its productivity by casual observations.

For example, my fields are empty today, but the're re-growing after being cropped, and they'll be supporting sheep through the winter months.

With regard to foresight, we'd do well to remember that as a nation, we don't produce enough food to feed ourselves.

chris_m

JQ. wrote: »

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

Indeed - to put it into perspective, it's roughly a bit under half a football pitch

ruggedtoast

We almost completed on a semi once that was in a nice development of tiny semis. This one had the advantage of having a huge (whatever your definition) garden that they'd extended the GF into.

The owners and agents insisted that the value of this land was virtually incalculable, as well as being guaranteed by the council planner that he could build 'whatever he wanted up to one story', a neighbours adjoining garden, similarly well endowed could be combined and sold to a developer for several more houses. They inflated the asking price accordingly.

"Thats fine but I'm not a property developer" I told the agent, and offered what I thought that type of house with a large garden was worth.

Some weeks later they accepted our offer, but our circumstances had changed then. Out of interest I looked up whether they had sold a few months on, and found a planning application for another GF bedroom, roundly rejected by the council on ascetic grounds.

And that was before garden grabbing rules.

Personally I think if the housing crisis gets any worse people will be living in tents in gardens.

harrup

Davesnave wrote: »

With regard to foresight, we'd do well to remember that as a nation, we don't produce enough food to feed ourselves.

I hear you....except our climate doesn't really lend itself to copious food production, does it? Too wet, cold and windy. Unless one wants to live on cabbage & potatoes for most of the year.

Still, to take your argument further, owing to prolific garden grabbing - say there WAS a war. And severe food shortage. Your 5 bed/4 baths won't be a lot of use if your garden is either non-existent or so tiny that you couldn't grow a few spuds and some veg if you had to.

Davesnave

harrup wrote: »

I hear you....except our climate doesn't really lend itself to copious food production, does it? Too wet, cold and windy. Unless one wants to live on cabbage & potatoes for most of the year.

Still, to take your argument further, owing to prolific garden grabbing - say there WAS a war. And severe food shortage. Your 5 bed/4 baths won't be a lot of use if your garden is either non-existent or so tiny that you couldn't grow a few spuds and some veg if you had to.

I think those growing, say, strawberries in Herefordshire, raspberries in Perthshire or various fruits & veg in The Vale of Evesham, Kent & East Anglia might take issue with that. Of course much is done under plastic or fleece these days, which is another thing the NIMBYs don't care for much. I had to get Planning Permission for my polytunnel.

However, if you look at what the Danes do in a similar climate, with much of it highly protected, there's no doubt we have the capacity, if not the will, to do the same.

Must say, I still like a bit of real countryside. :cool:

I'm not sure if another War would produce the same response as the last one regarding 'Dig for Victory,' but even if it did, wouldn't that mean digging up parks and roadside areas, more allotments and so on? Private gardens lead to private stashes.

Hmmmm....and there were the Land Girls too....

tbs624

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Personally I think if the housing crisis gets any worse people will be living in tents in gardens.

There's a thread on here about a Brighton LL who claimed she had to do just that....;)

Fuzzyness

the recent publication of the National Planning Policy Framework set out at paragraph 53 that local planning authorities should prepare policies that restict the reuse of garden land for new housing. Whilst there is a general presumption against this type of development applicants or homeowners can still apply for new houses in gardens and its down to councils to decide whether they are acceptable or not.

in the case of the OP, if most of the houses along a particular street are all set in a large grounds then inserting a similar sized dwelling into the mix would altert he general character of the area. whether this would be acceptable or not is hard to say but does come down to the council needing to deliver new housing to meet their housing needs and this type of development may be more preferable than isolated new dwellings in the countryside or in less sustainable smaller villages.

heretolearn_2

A simply-shaped 1/4 acre plot would be 66foot wide by 165 foot long. Loads of room for a house with a nice sized garden.

On 'unused' fields - how do you know? Life isn't like Farmville where it takes a couple of days tops for crops/animals to grow. Do you know anything about farming/seasons/livestock management/land management? What a daft thing to say, sorry. that 'empty' field could be waiting for its next crop. It could be pasture that is not being grazed so that it produces a hay crop (there's been a big hay shortage in much of the UK last couple of years, so that field of 'unused' grass is actually extremely valuable). Cattle have to be brought indoors for the winter but if you build on their fields where are they going in the summer? Livestock has to be moved around, it can't just live in one little field forever as the grass runs out/parasites increase/the land becomes damaged by the animals feet, so there will always be some fields 'resting' as part of the whole cycle. There is very little 'unused' agricultural land about and even if there were, that's still no reason to build on it when there is plenty of brownfield sites still. Once it's built on there's no way it ever goes back to food production, so it's permanently lost as a resource for future generations.