When the Government announced its plans to build a series of garden communities across England, they were billed as locally led solutions that would create thriving neighbourhoods to help local authorities meet their housing needs.

Providing jobs, shops, community and recreational facilities and sustainable transport networks, it was hoped the proposed settlements would overcome some of the resistance to new development.

But six years on fresh questions have been raised about whether such large-scale proposals are a feasible way of delivering large numbers of new homes.

Inspectors recently recommended that four out of five garden communities proposed across north Essex* be removed from their respective Local Plans on grounds of deliverability and viability. In Hampshire another garden community was removed from the now-adopted Local Plan after the inspector concluded that there were too many unanswered questions regarding deliverability, amongst other issues.

Savills own research has also questioned whether development is emerging in the most sustainable locations and finds that new housing is often located far from existing transport hubs with insufficient relationship to planned employment growth.

In north Essex inspectors concluded that all but one of the proposed garden communities were unsound because of uncertainty around funding for the required transport infrastructure and the failure of the authorities to include an appropriate contingency allowance when estimating costs.

There are of course examples of success. The Bailrigg Garden Village to the south of Lancaster has just been given the green light by the Local Plan inspector, while those at Bicester in Oxfordshire, North Northamptonshire and Ebbsfleet Garden Town in Kent are all starting to deliver new homes.

What is notable about the above examples, however, is that they are all urban expansions of, or linked to, existing settlements, while those proposed in north Essex and Hampshire could all be considered separate, standalone, new settlements. They are therefore unable to rely to the same extent on existing infrastructure, services and facilities, necessitating more expensive and up-front delivery.

The challenges in proving the deliverability and viability of garden communities as part of the Local Plan examination has led some to suggest that there should be more flexibility at the plan-making stage or whether a different approach is required. However, with such communities often making up a large proportion of the planned housing delivery for the local area, it is probably correct that they be robustly tested and remain part of the Local Plan process.

While it is widely accepted that the current Local Plan system has its limitations, on balance, when it comes to testing viability and deliverability, it is arguable that it has perhaps got it right.

A key purpose of Local Plan examinations is to test whether the strategy proposed and the sites within it are sustainable. If the viability of garden communities is not robustly tested at an early stage then there is a risk it will result in the erosion of their core objectives – the delivery of affordable housing, promotion of green space and biodiversity net gain being three obvious examples.

It remains to be seen whether the local planning authorities in north Essex and Hampshire will yet again endorse the removed garden communities – all of which have been backed by the Government. Should the local authorities conclude, presumably with the benefit of further work, that the communities will be viable and will deliver as expected, then they might re-appear in the next Local Plan. Alternatively, they might opt for a ‘safer bet’.

If designed and planned correctly, garden communities can indeed help the country deliver large numbers of new homes. But recent experience suggests they are no quick fix and have to be properly and robustly considered.

If proposed garden communities, particularly those that would be new standalone settlements, are to fulfil their potential then even more thought needs to be given to their location, funding and supposed reliance on significant new infrastructure, otherwise it is likely the high bar that the plan-making process has recently demonstrated will continue to be insurmountable.

* Great Chesterford in Uttlesford District, Easton Park in Uttlesford District, West of Braintree in Uttlesford and Braintree Districts, West of Colchester in Braintree and Colchester Districts.  

Further information

Contact Rosanna Metcalfe

Read more about Savills Planning