Last year the concept of ‘beauty’ emerged as a significant, yet contentious factor in determining planning applications for new housing developments.
Indeed, several planning applications fell at the final hurdle because the then Secretary of State Michael Gove determined that they lacked ‘beauty’.
The planning and development sector heaved a collective sigh of relief when the incoming Labour government signalled its intention to remove the very subjective term of ‘beauty’ from the NPPF.
Planning has always had an important role to play in encouraging good design to deliver attractive, high quality and sustainable places.
WALKABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS
But the housing market, driven by consumer preferences, is often at odds with the planning system. For example homeowners tend to prefer lower density, two-storey detached and semi-detached homes with front and back gardens, while the planning system prioritises a more efficient use of land through higher density development, which allows more homes to be delivered.
High density development is also promoted as a way to plan more accessible, walkable neighbourhoods that are better served by local amenities and public transport.
So given this disparity, can the planning system’s role of encouraging good design be met if the views of the market and the and policy makers do not align?
DIFFICULT TO SELL
The idea that the planning system can impose a particular form of housing on the market often results in developments that are difficult to sell and unappealing.
When this was attempted previously, through Planning Policy Guidance 3 (which steered policy towards higher density townhouses, with fewer car parking spaces and smaller gardens on previously developed land), unfortunately it did not always succeed in delivering sustainable, high-quality development.
Build costs for developers were higher on average for higher density development, which alongside greater Section 106 costs resulted in reduced investment in overall placemaking and quality of development.
Despite these advancements, the tensions between traditional design aesthetics and modern requirements continue to divide the industry. Proponents of traditionalism argue for picturesqueness in new developments to foster a sense of history and charm, while advocates for innovation caution against allowing a reverence for nostalgic historical styles, which deter creativity and modernisation.
STIFLING DESIGN
If the Georgians and Victorians had indulged in pastiche, they argue, we would lack the architecture that some are so keen to imitate. This dichotomy raises further questions: how can planners and architects innovate while respecting the vernacular? How can community aspirations be understood without stifling the potential for contemporary design?
Design which connects with the local vernacular enables traditionally-inspired properties as demanded by the consumer, without falling into the ‘identikit homes’ category.
Technically, the Government’s design codes address this issue. However, these design codes can be cumbersome and ineffective, requiring numerous rounds of public consultation. And when applied to broad geographic areas, they lack the agility to respond genuinely to local needs.
While design codes may receive support from local residents, councillors and (through complying with national policy) local authority planners, they often miss engaging with the future homeowner – the most crucial stakeholder. But this then raises another important question: how qualified are individuals to comment on design? Without a comprehensive understanding the technical issues, should existing residents dictate the style and layout of future communities?
VALUE FOR MONEY
Prospective purchasers, unlike existing residents and politicians, often prioritise value for money over aesthetics. Polling for the Policy Exchange indicated that fewer than one in ten UK residents believed new homes were design to high standard, and 77% attributed poor design to cost-cutting measures.
Many argue that ‘beauty’ is often undervalued by most volume housebuilders, but those who have pursued have generally found that quality placemaking is an investment, rather than an expense. A successful development should strike a balance between cost and quality, delivering both effectively.
Instead of getting caught up in defining and determining ‘beauty’ which caused immense problems under the previous administration, I believe the government should allow the property industry to focus on creating quality development which meet customers’ needs. When this delivers a good financial return, it’s a win:win.
Lawrence Turner is Director of Boyer
