Introduced by Caroline Spelman (Con, Meriden).

The Bill adds amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to protect gardens and urban green space, and also confers housing-density-setting-powers on local authorities, emphasising residential development to be mixed with commercial development. 

The Bill also requires public bodies to publish regular reports on the “desirability and practicality” of providing residential accommodation on developed land which they own. 

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended in several ways in the Bill, relating to local authorities, planning and housing in England and Wales.

During second reading in the Commons, Spelman outlined the contributory factors to the presence of “garden–grabbing” in the planning system. She asserted that it was the combination of gardens being defined as brownfield, with the accompanying emphasis on building on brownfield sites and the imposition of house building targets by central government, which has led to an explosion of the “chaotic and unplanned development” in gardens across the United Kingdom. Spelman spoke of the strain the extra development places on urban infrastructure, such as sewage and drainage systems.

Spelman criticised the government’s “obsession” with house building targets, and also spoke against the executive powers being given to the Mayor of London on planning and housing issues, replacing the core elements of local democracy as she sees it. She also mentioned that “since the new Secretary of State took office, one in six planning decisions have been overturned, so the rate of local council decisions being overruled is higher than ever before”.

Spelman cited the broad support for the issue across the house, with 179 members from both sides signing an early day motion on the problem, and said that the development of gardens has actually exacerbated the underutilisation of larger brownfield sites, due to the popularity shown by developers for garden development.

Government transport spokesperson Andy Slaughter commented that the proposals in the Bill were already covered by planning policy statement number 3, although Spelman refuted this claim, saying that urban green spaces were not comprehensively mentioned in the guidance.

Lorely Burt (Lib Dem, Solihull) spoke on the need for local authorities to have the power to decide what is in the interests of their local population.

Andrew Dismore (Lab, Hendon) spoke of disreputable tactics used by developers to persuade (sometimes vulnerable) people to sell their homes for demolition and the building of blocks of flats. He also discussed the need for gardens to not be included in the 60 per cent target for brownfield development, and echoed Bernard Jenkins’ (Lab, Tamworth) comments that garden should be classed as “greyfield” sites, and therefore neither Greenfield or brownfield development.

Laura Moffatt (Lab, Crawley) expressed concern over any dictatorial nature of the Bill: “we should think carefully about development law and accept that the Bill is not the correct vehicle, because it would hamper local authorities’ ability to ensure that development is in keeping with the area. That is often difficult to do, but to impose a presumption against development in gardens would be detrimental.”

Andy Slaughter criticised the Bill, saying that it would “not achieve anything”. He commented:

“The Bill would either direct local authorities—although Opposition Members now say that it would not—in which case it would be an unseemly interference with local discretion, or it would do nothing of the kind, in which case why is it necessary?”

Communities and local government spokesperson Angela C. Smith responded on behalf of the government, saying:

"The Bill’s aims are very laudable and we agree entirely that protecting green urban spaces and encouraging mixed-use development are very important objectives. I am surprised, however, that the Bill proposes that those aims be prescribed in primary legislation. That is over-bureaucratic and unnecessary. "