PPS3 Gardens now greenfield unless previously built on. - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

A landscape treatment like this is precisely the kind of thing envisaged in the 'natural surroundings clause' 95% of the UK is not wilderness, nature is created, including gardens with water features. Im sure any inspector would give you short shrift

Jim There are some excellent comments from Andrew Chalmers in Localism and Greenbelt. Sefton MBC who worked with the Government on the recent changes to PPS3 has contacted direct and confirmed. The recent changes to PPS3 re the definition of ‘Greenfield land’ applied only to residential gardens. For example, back/side gardens etc had previously been classified as Brownfield are now classified as ‘Greenfield’ unless it has been previously developed. Then it would remain ‘Brownfield’. If the surface that was once occupied by a school building is now flagged, then it cannot be regarded as “having blended into the landscape in the process of time”. If it does not, for example now appear to be part of the “natural surroundings” then it would remain Brownfield under the PPS3 definition. Inspector “It does not have the appearance of undeveloped countryside and cannot be described as Greenfield in any literal sense”. Therefore, as you can see from their responses, if it does not have the appearance of undeveloped countryside and cannot be described as Greenfield, consequently the site as previously built on can only be “Brownfield”. Regards Paul

Paul, PPS3 sets out that previously-developed land excludes land where "the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings)." This will be a matter of judgement on a case by case basis but suspect it really is much more applicable to more rural or open land sites than urban sites where everything from site access, fencing, surrounding uses and context tend to suggest that there was something there previously. I know we lost an argument at appeal some years ago over whether a well- wooded railway cutting had naturally regenerated and become greenfield. From recollection the Inspector considered it would always be an "urban" feature. It seems unlikely to me that a former school site will easily become part of the natural surroundings. My own view is that the quality of development and its overall appropriateness in planning terms is what should be tested rather than an often relatively blunt greenfield or browfield test alone. Andrew Chalmers Principal Planning Officer 17 May 2011 10:44

A related question worthy, I hope, of bumping this topic back up: my client has an old military-style shed in his garden that possesses a decent footprint and excellent access to local city services. Though my client's house is within the development boundary, the shed falls outside, albeit within his garden boundary. Is the shed previously-developed land under PPS3 and, if so, what bearing does its location on the 'wrong' side of the development boundary have on its capability of acceptance for conversion/rebuilding as a residence? Two planning officers have offered two entirely contradictory views.

Kai It’s sad to say but some planners have not understood fully, the changes in PPS3. If you mention “Garden” they say it’s Greenfield so No! You must prove without any doubt the building and its footprint, surface area to the council, and get the council to agree with you the site was previously-developed and Brownfield. Talk to the LPA with your Ideas and only then go for outline with a realistic proposal, as for the development boundaries in your case would be a consideration only, not a reason for refusal. The government is still pushing for 60% of new houses to be built on Brownfield yours site previously-developed and ticks that box. Paul

Andrew, Thank you for your comments. A housing estate was constructed on the site of a former NHS Hospital, sold by the Secretary of State with planning permission to demolish and convert the total area of the hospital site, and associated buildings up to the boundaries for 35 dwellings. This was a children’s hospital and as such, there was a school directly on the surface of the plot I have described. The developer completed 23 houses and the remaining 12 plots were sold to different developers and individuals, who then applied for planning with new designs and layouts of their own. 34 have been built, No 34 completed in 2002. The last plot when purchased in 1995, from the developer was then flagged over with a Kio pond and accessed from the adjoining property. The owner of the adjoining property who purchased the plot now wishes to build a retirement bungalow to complete the 35 in line with original permission given. In 2005 IPP was adopted and in their view, the plot is now a garden and so it would be a Greenfield site, so a possible no? It is agreed the plot/site is large enough for a single dwelling without issues in terms of access and living conditions of nearby occupants. Any one in four is acceptable for development, we believe there are two. • Previously-Developed land /Brownfield • The proposal is for no more units on the development that already have original planning to the site boundaries that the council agreed, and the Secretary of State sold with the site, in 1988. With the government proposing to sell land for housing with planning, this should make a good topic. Your valued comments please. Paul

There is no definition of 'greenfield' in the regulations - only previously developed. If something has 'blended' it is not previously developed, before the change to the definition or after. As you indicate it was a merged plot and treated as part of the garden henceforth. Abandoning the previous planning unit and previous permission. The act of laying flag stones would not take something into PDL - only a change of land use would. Otherwise flagstones around a cowshed would make it PDL. The change of land use here was from house surrounded by garden to garden. All gardens are now not PDL even if covered by decking, concrete or whatever. Or even if that garden has a garage in it - as the garage is not (normally) a separate land use - it is an ancillary building. The revised definition in the NPPF includes 'pavillions' etc as part of gardens. It is a matter of fact and degree of course and may depend on the size and degree of detachment of the garage. If at the bottom of the garden is treated as garden I think. Gardens

Previously-Developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any fixed surface infrastructure. If there was a school on the surface of the land is it previously developed YES or NO,? If Mr Grant Shapps is going to ease planning restictions, and build 100,000 new homes on previously-developed land, he needs to have an independent body to say it is previously-developed and their word to be final, if not the time and money wasted in commitee meetings will stop his plans dead in the water.