Planning Policy

: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That situation reflects a lack of co-ordination between national and local government, which is extraordinary given that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for that sort of planning matter. Returning to gardens, residential gardens provide far greater biodiversity than most agricultural land, so they have greater environmental value, particularly because they provide wildlife habitats in the heart of built-up areas where such habitats would otherwise be absent. Ironically, the loss of garden land usually has a far greater impact on the character of the surrounding area than the loss of an equivalent sized plot of greenfield land. Development of residential gardens should be strongly resisted, but planning guidance positively encourages it. At least the new PPS3 acknowledges that problem when it says that, although residential gardens are defined as brownfield land, that"““does not necessarily mean they are suitable for development””." It then negates that, however, by referring to the"““positive contribution that intensification can make””" by minimising the pressure on greenfield sites. On 2 February the ODPM—obviously feeling some pressure on this point—issued a brief statement that typically passed the buck to local councils, saying:"““Local planning authorities can already turn down applications for buildings in gardens if they are inappropriate or out of character with the local community.””" However, set against the clear encouragement in PPS3 about the ““positive contribution”” of such development, local planning authorities will be very reluctant to risk the high costs of a planning appeal by refusing such applications. It costs the council tax payer money to lose such a fight.