The Government has rapidly revised PPS3 which has introduced two principal changes. Garden land has been removed from the definition of brownfield land and the minimum national density targets have been abolished.

It has been a cause for concern and indeed confusion for the public as to why gardens come under the same definition as say, a derelict factory. Small scale development of gardens has become increasingly common and the changes introduced to the PPS have been hailed by the Government as preventing garden grabbing. Such comments may understandably worry landowners and developers.  In reality, however, the changes are perhaps not as important as they may at first appear. The changes are not likely to result in a significant impact on the development of gardens. They may shift the balance slightly in favour of local authorities but it has never been the case that development of all gardens has been appropriate and Councils have always had strong powers to refuse applications which are out of keeping with the character of an area or which would harm the amenities of neighbours. In principle, removing the brownfield status of gardens does not prevent their development, the key issues remain whether they lie within a settlement in a sustainable location and that development is appropriate in design terms. The changes do not, therefore, rule out development of gardens as may be suggested.

The abolition of the minimum density target is also perhaps not such a fundamental change as it may appear. The need to make efficient use of land remains part of the guidance. There has never been a situation where maximising density overrules other matters such as layout and design. The need to ensure that development is sensitive and appropriate to its location has always been an overriding consideration and the need to meet minimum densities has, in reality, never been a justification for approval of developments which were otherwise unacceptable on, for example, design grounds. The changes are in some ways a reaction against the building of large numbers of flats over recent years. The changes may give Councils confidence to oppose proposals which may have been seen to be marginal in design terms but were promoted on the grounds of meeting density targets. The need to make efficient use of land remains a key consideration of national policy and, therefore, perhaps this change will have only a marginal effect on the pattern of development.