Planning policy also gives considerable weight to ‘beauty’, as determined by the work of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission and exemplified in its report Building More, Building Beautiful: How design and style can unlock the housing crisis. The report used extensive polling to show that in the design of new homes, traditional building design was preferable to contemporary architecture. Across all demographics, a large majority agreed that newly built properties should fit in with their surroundings. Support was used to substantiate the claim that NIMBYism can be overcome if design better reflects people’s desire for traditional architecture.
But what role should politicians have in prescribing specific styles of architecture? In advocating gentle density, the NPPF identifies mansard windows as ‘well designed’ and states that considering them harmful to the character of neighbourhoods is ‘wrong’. To my mind,making value judgements about specific architectural features a step too far for planning policy. After all, whether any architectural feature is ‘right’ or ‘beautiful’ depends upon the context.
My view is that good design is closely linked to good land use. In most situations, especially urban areas, density has many advantages. It helps create a mixed and balanced community, allows a range of facilities in close proximity, is economically advantageous and can facilitate greater variety of uses, such as live/work and co-living. Denser schemes also have the potential to be more sustainable, not least in terms of sustainable transport, if located close to public transport or within reach of local services. Developable land, especially in cities, is a scarce resource and it is essential that potential development capacity is not wasted.
While beauty and density are dependent on context, the similarities end there. In fact context is one of the many features which demonstrates why the two cannot be synonymous. Poundbury, the Duchy of Cornwall’s experimental Georgian pastiche development inDorchester exemplifies this. Georgian architecture may represent the very best in design to some; to others the repurposing of a centuries-old style is regarded defeatist, retrograde, even ‘Disneyesque’.
And I would also question whether Georgian architecture allows greater density. In London, three storey homes with generous gardens both front and back represent low density.
Perhaps the Poundbury approach will help encourage local communities to accept development, even higher density development. But this only works in areas where the average density is lower than a typical neo-Georgian development. Take that approach in London and the acceptable densities currently achieved will be lost, homes will become increasingly scarce, prices will sky-rocket and local centres will become desolate and unviable.
To my mind, planning policy has no role in prescribing either a specific architectural style or a national base-line for density. Politicians should avoid tinkering with policy, especially when the motivation is politically motivated and the likely outcome is at best uncertain.
