Pot plants, garden gnomes and birdbaths are in the firing line of a new war on people simply trying to use or enhance the space outside their homes. Local authorities and housing associations across the UK are increasingly imposing heavy-handed rules banning residents of council estates from gardening, drying laundry or even sitting in the sun on their balconies or outside their front doors.
Last week, residents of the Vanbrugh Park estate in Greenwich, south-east London, where I live, launched a campaign to save our front gardens, after the council sent men to dismantle them, citing fire safety concerns.
One of my neighbours, whose prize-winning flower display previously scooped Best Front Garden in the Greenwich in Bloom awards, was told she must now keep her garden completely clear. Elderly residents who cannot walk to local parks unaided were instructed to give up the small benches that allow them to sit outside in fine weather.
Residents of the affected flats fear the loss of the gardens will lead to a deterioration in mental health, community interaction, privacy and biodiversity, and could exacerbate dangerous overheating. A petition started by the community to save their gardens has now been signed by more than 25,000 supporters.
The mews flats in the 1963 estate were designed by the architects Chamberlin, Powell and Bon – who designed the Barbican Centre – with open areas outside each front door large enough for residents to keep pot plants, bikes and benches, without obstructing access. Neither the council’s own fire assessment nor a subsequent safety inspection that residents requested from London Property Licensing identified the gardens as posing a risk, but the council says it has adopted a new “zero tolerance” policy towards any items kept outside homes.
The Vanbrugh Park estate clampdown is just the latest in a spate of authorities stripping economically deprived communities of access to space on the grounds of fire safety. In Newham, east London, the housing association L&Q told residents of Chobham Manor estate to stop drying their laundry on balconies, claiming it “poses a risk to everyone”; and in Camden, north London, a teacher who won the borough’s best window-box competition was in April given 48 hours to take down her hanging baskets. A woman in Norwich was told to remove balcony fencing she had added to stop her dog from falling; while in Kent, residents of a retirement complex were informed that putting Christmas wreaths on their front doors contravened “fire safety regulations”.
In fact, the new policies often appear to go beyond legal requirements. For example, 90cm of clear passage for communal exit routes is required under British building regulations, but authorities are frequently demanding far more. Residents of the Triangle, a 1972 estate in Islington built with multiple fire-escape routes, have been told they must completely clear their 12 sq metre terraces, though only a fraction of this space is needed to maintain a safe escape route.
“Since Grenfell, there is a fear of taking responsibility: draconian measures are being imposed by local authorities with no rational thinking,” José L Torero, head of civil, environmental and geomatic engineering at UCL, told me. “More than 30 years of expertise being lost from this field has resulted in a situation where people without any experience are making all the decisions. You have things like people putting small garden furniture on their balcony and getting told to remove it – that’s nonsense. What is happening in Greenwich makes no sense.”
One of the country’s most senior fire safety specialists, Torero is the former editor of the Fire Safety Journal and serves as an expert witness to the Grenfell Tower inquiry. He fears decades of underfunding means many people working as fire engineers do not have the proper qualifications. “People think that having experience as a firefighter qualifies you to be a fire engineer, when those disciplines are completely different. Fire safety is a discipline in which safety should be introduced in a rational way – not an irrational and random introduction of barriers that will result in massive social problems with no gain.”
By imposing new rules that drastically damage residents’ quality of life without good reason, housing authorities are failing to treat their tenants and leaseholders with dignity or compassion.
It was a malfunctioning fridge that ignited the disastrous Grenfell Tower fire, but banning electrical appliances from kitchens in the name of reducing the risk of fires would be absurd. Good fire-safety policies are rooted in practical and proportionate measures that provide the maximum impact with the least onerous impositions on residents, and should be made with input from the community.
Thankfully, a few enlightened local authorities are embracing more evidence-based policies. In Camden, north London, guidance for council residents states: “You are allowed plants outside your home” so long as they are not “in anyone’s way”, while Southwark uses a “flexible, rather than blanket, approach”. This strategy allowed the borough to reach an amicable compromise at the Brandon Estate in Camberwell, south-east London, after officers initially told residents not to fly England flags during Euro 2020 but later backed down.
Councils are under intense pressure and the fear of being held liable should a tragedy occur is driving rushed, over-the-top policymaking. But fear of liability must never be allowed to distort good practice or put entire communities’ wellbeing at risk.
Gardens, even tiny balcony ones, bring enormous positive benefits. Councils and housing associations must conquer their liability fears: learning to work alongside residents to co-create sensible, specific and appropriate approaches that safeguard wellbeing for all.
Phineas Harper is chief executive of the charity Open City
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
