How to improve the design of new housing developments

Government reports can include contradictory objectives, usually resolved locally by officers and councillors. This is particularly true of planning policy, which typically promotes the approval of many more dwellings, a high standard of design, the protection of agricultural land and wildlife, the preservation of the countryside, and sustainability. In reality, meeting housing targets set by Government has usually trumped all the other considerations, and large areas of farmland in England have been concreted over with badly-designed high-density estates. Even where local planning authorities have refused consent for schemes of this kind, planning inspectors have usually approved appeals on the grounds that they meet a local ‘housing shortage’.

There have been recent signs, however, that the planning pendulum may be swinging back to favouring quality over quantity. One recent report that has influenced this trend is Living with Beauty, which was commissioned by the Government from the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, and published in 2020. The Commission was chaired by the eminent philosopher Sir Roger Scruton (who died just after the text was finalised). The report is very critical of the design and layout of new housing:
    “It is widely believed that we are building the wrong things, in the wrong places, and in defiance of what people want... At a time when there is an acute shortage of homes, there is therefore widespread opposition to new developments, which seem to threaten the beauty of their surroundings and to impose a uniform ‘cookie cutter’ product that degrades our natural and built inheritance. People want to live in beautiful places; they want to live next to beautiful places; they want to settle in a somewhere of their own, where the human need for beauty and harmony is satisfied by the view from the window and a walk to the shops, a walk which is not marred by polluted air or an inhuman street. But those elemental needs are not being met by the housing market, and the planning system has failed to require them”.

The report states that beauty exists at three levels:
1.    Beautiful buildings (windows, materials, proportion, space).
2.    Beautiful places (streets, squares and parks, the ‘spirit of the places’)
3.    Beautifully placed (sustainable settlement patterns sitting in the landscape).

    “This means accepting that new development should be designed to fit into the life and texture of the place where it occurs; and also that it should aim to be an improvement of that place, regenerative not parasitic, an illustration of the way in which a new street may be more beautiful than the buildings or fields that preceded it”.

The most persuasive parts of the report for many people are its photographs of good and bad design in recent developments. The report diagnosed the ugliness of current building as being due to the dominance of the motor car, the mass production of houses rather than local vernacular production, and the emphasis by governments on quantity over quality. It notes that developers make promises of attractive tree-lined estates which they then fail to deliver. Instead, they build standardised houses on tiny plots in cul-de-sacs packed with cars, with resultant poor air quality and little incentive to walk or cycle. This gives little opportunity for neighbours to meet in the street and develop a sense of community.

Living with Beauty makes many recommendations for changes to the planning system, most of which relate particularly to towns and cities. The most important for rural areas are:
1.    To place greater emphasis in assessing planning applications on the quality of the design and the creation of places as well as houses. These should meet locally-developed design codes, to ensure new dwellings conform to local patterns of building.
2.    Local plans should identify sites pro-actively rather than respond to the results of call for sites or to speculative applications. Planning should not be by appeal.
3.    Faster approval for applications which are in accord with the local plan, meet design codes and have local support.
4.    More effective enforcement of planning decisions.
5.    More sustained local consultation and engagement.
6.    Planting more trees in streets, with funding provided to parish councils to do this. This should include new orchards and tree-lined squares.
7.    Councils should measure the outcomes of new developments.

The Government response largely supported the recommendations of the report, and stated:
    “...we have made beauty, design quality and placemaking a strategic theme in proposed revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework, positively supported design quality as a key issue in consenting schemes, made it clearer that poor quality schemes should be refused, and where appropriate extended references to ‘good design’ to ‘good design and beautiful places’.”

The most recent version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does indeed include an enhanced chapter on design. This includes a statement on trees:
    “Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are retained wherever possible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work with highways officers and tree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places, and solutions are found that are compatible with highways standards and the needs of different users.”

The NPPF also states that:
    "Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as design guides and codes.”

The main Government guidance on design is the National Design Guide, which was published by the Ministry of Communities, Housing and Local Government in 2021. This incorporates the same principles as Living with Beauty, but set out in a more systematic way with many examples of good practice. The NPPF proposes that local planning authorities should develop their own design guides, and the Government has issued lengthy design codes to guide this task.

There are some problems with Living with Beauty. In the first place, the most attractive estate designs have generally been the work of either small local builders or non-profit organisations such as Bournville Village Trust, the garden cities, and some local authorities. But most houses in England are now built by a small number of very large development firms, which have standardised design and construction: assembling rather than building houses. Secondly, it is not clear that the public share Roger Scruton’s aesthetic sense. Some people think beauty means big and shiny. Some residents rip out their front gardens and uproot their trees to provide car parking spaces. The authors of Living with Beauty are aware of this danger, and review options for ‘stewardship’ to protect the quality of the built environment. The report makes detailed recommendations for changes to taxation to encourage continued and positive engagement by landowners.

Another relevant report for housing design is Building Car Dependency, completed by the multi-agency Transport for New Homes Steering Group in 2022. This surveyed 28 recently-completed housing developments, with a specific focus on their impact on transport. But the photographs also illustrate the ugliness and inconvenience of many developments. The report found that most urban housing estates on brownfield sites were well-integrated with local public transport, walking and cycling networks. Rural greenfield developments, however, were based on the assumption that residents would use a car for virtually every journey. A high proportion of the land in such developments was therefore required for car parking.  Front gardens were often absent and back gardens tiny. Promised community developments had not been built, and few people walk to schools or shops. There were few usable footpath networks and cycling was often dangerous, along narrow country lanes with increased motor vehicle traffic. Public transport was infrequent or not available.

The report proposes that new housing estates in rural areas are inappropriate and government targets forcing local authorities to accept this kind of housing should be abolished. New housing should not be in places which increase car-dependency and houses should instead be located where people can walk or cycle for many of their journeys. There should be more mixed-use development with opportunities for local cafes and shops.

It is possible to use these documents to prepare a simple checklist that can be used when assessing planning applications for new housing estates in rural communities.
1.    Housing density. Is the density of dwellings similar to that in the rest of the village, or is more similar to levels found in suburban or urban areas?
2.    Setting. Does the proposed estate fit in the local landscape, or does it block views that are valued by local people?
3.    Connectivity. Do the footpaths and cycle routes connect easily to those in the rest of the village, or are they largely self-contained within the proposed estate?
4.    Proximity. Is it possible to walk a safe and short distance to the local shop, primary school and bus stop, or are these facilities more than walking distance (usually taken as being 800 metres) from the furthest point in the proposed estate and/or accessible by narrow footpaths along public roads?
5.    Character. Are the proposed dwellings in a style similar to those typical of local villages, or are they in a standard design similar to those built elsewhere by the developer?
6.    Diversity. Are the proposed dwellings diverse in size and ownership, or are they predominantly of one size (eg ‘four-bedroom executive homes’).
7.    Arboreal. Are the proposed streets lined with trees, or would someone looking down the street see mainly brick, concrete and paving?
8.    Protecting biodiversity. Are existing trees and hedges protected, or is it proposed to build close to their roots and/or damage their health?

How to object to a planning application

Introduction
People most frequently come into contact with the planning system by two routes: when they or their neighbours apply to make alterations to their houses; or when there is an application by a developer to build a nearby housing estate or commercial development. There are many more of the former than the latter. In a single year, a typical rural local planning authority (Malvern Hills District Council) determined 1462 planning applications, of which only 52 were for ‘major developments’. Almost all applications for alterations are uncontentious, unless changes are proposed to a listed building or a building in a conservation area, or when a neighbour believes the alteration will cause a loss of amenity.

Most opposition to planning applications therefore concerns proposals to build major developments, usually where these are for villages or in open countryside. This paper gives some guidance on how to oppose such planning applications most effectively. But it is important to understand that the planning system can also enable people to determine how they wish their village to develop. Future papers will look at how to create neighbourhood plans and participate in the creation of ‘local plans’ (a term used for a plan which covers one or more district councils).


The planning system
The planning system in England is a strange mix of political, administrative and judicial processes. Decisions on granting planning permission are made by local planning authority (LPA), which in rural areas is usually a district council or unitary authority. However, most decisions are granted without a debate by the full council or even by a planning committee, but are instead delegated to a planning officer or local ward councillor. In Malvern Hills District, 94% of applications were determined at officer level.

Where councillors are involved in making a decision, they have to be aware of the advice of their professionally-qualified planning officers, who will make a recommendation largely on whether the application conforms to the requirements of key planning documents. These form a hierarchy, from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to the local plan, to the neighbourhood plan (if there is one).

The NPPF is produced by the Secretary of State for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities, and is revised every two or so years. It specifies the objectives of the planning system and how it should operate. The NPPF states that “The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”. This interpreted to mean that “all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change...”. These objectives are often self-contradictory - a common feature of government policy documents.

Local plans (also called ‘development plans’) are produced by one or more local planning authorities, usually after a lengthy process of consultation. As a result, local plans are completed infrequently and may be out of date. A key part of local plans are its ‘policies’. These are like mini-laws, and each one is numbered and justified by evidence. Local plans must conform with the NPPF, in particular the requirement to meet the ‘objectively-assessed housing need’ (OAHN) which is calculated by the Government for each local planning authority. A large part of any local plan, therefore, is the identification of preferred sites for development. The formula for calculating local OAHNs has fluctuated radically in the past few years, and is the subject of national controversy. Local planning authorities must not only conform to their OAHN, but also ensure they have identified sufficient building sites to meet five year’s worth of OAHN. If local planning authorities fail to identify a ‘five-year land-supply’, developers can argue that they should no longer be restricted to sites specified in the local plan and can build outside settlement boundaries in open countryside.

Neighbourhood plans exist mainly in rural areas and small towns, and are usually developed by parish and town councils. They are required to conform with the strategic objectives of the local plan, but may also identify preferred sites for development as well as preferred styles and types of housing. Unlike the other two levels of planning, neighbourhood plans are adopted after a referendum in the designated neighbourhood area.

Councillors will usually take heed of the advice of their planning officers because applicants have a right of appeal if the application is refused. Appeals are determined by a planning inspector, which is a quasi-judicial post. The planning inspector may hold public hearings, in which applicants may be represented by specialist planning lawyers. If the refusal is overturned by the planning inspector, the applicant may be awarded costs which will be met by the local planning authority. Note that there is no right of appeal by a local community against the granting of planning permission (although in a very few cases, there may be a request for judicial review).

It is important to understand that planning system, for all its complexity, is limited to ‘spatial planning’, or the allocation of land. All the other agencies of government such as education, transport, the environment and so on will have their own planning systems, often produced by a different set of authorities.


Planning applications
Planning applications always involve several documents, all of which can be viewed and downloaded from the local planning authority website. Each application is allocated a number, and you can use this to search got the application you are interested in. Applications can be outline or full, and will include multiple documents, including:
▸    An application form. This will include the name of the developer, their agent, and a summary of things like the proposed number of dwellings and parking spaces.
▸    One or more maps, showing the location and layout of the proposed development.
▸    Elevations of the proposed buildings.
▸    Design statement. This is often the most useful document, and gives the justification for the scheme and how it corresponds to the local and neighbourhood plans. The latter details are sometimes found in a separate planning statement.
▸    Landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA). This assesses the impact of the proposed development on the local landscape.
▸    Transport statement. This describes current traffic in the vicinity of the proposed development and estimates the resulting increase. There is also an account of public transport and walking and cycle routes.
▸    Drainage report. This describes how sewage and flood water will be managed.
▸    Environmental impact reports. There may be separate reports assessing the impact of the proposed development on the biodiversity of the site and on particular types of wildlife (especially protected species like bats and newts).

All of these reports are included because they are required by the local plan and national regulations. However, they are all funded by the developer. As a result, they are rarely critical of the proposed development and may even play down its disadvantages. They therefore differ from the reports from public authorities, which are shorter, more factual, and can be critical of the proposed development. These reports usually include:
▸    Heritage reports, which assess the impact of the proposed development on historic buildings, conservation areas etc.
▸    Reports from local authority drainage engineers.
▸    Reports from the Highway Authority (usually the County Council or unitary authority in a rural area).
▸    Landscape and wildlife reports.
▸    Footpath reports, assessing the impact on rights-of-way.
▸    An urban design report.

The website will also include an opportunity to submit your own comments on the application, which you can do either by typing onscreen, or by attaching a file. There is usually a very short deadline for submitting an objection, but the actual decision will be made by the council some months later. This means that an objection submitted a month or two after the deadline will still be considered.

Developers sometimes submit a response to the various planning objections, and this will be downloaded to the website for the planning application. It is therefore important to keep viewing the website and, if necessary, to reply to the developer.


Preparing an objection
A common response to an unpopular planning application is a petition. This has little impact and, by itself, is a waste of effort. However, there are more effective ways of mobilising opposition. These include forming an action group to publicise the disadvantages of the proposed scheme, and encouraging people to submit objections on the LPA website. These should be in people’s own words and include information about the disadvantages they would personally suffer, rather than be a standardised response. An important part of making a comment is ‘certification’. Public authorities pay far more attention to communications from formal bodies than from individual members of the public. Formal bodies have letter-heads, a list of officers, and contact details. Action groups should ensure they are certified in this way. The most important such body is the parish or town council, and this should make a detailed response which summarises the reasons for local opposition. Other certified bodies that can be enlisted in a campaign are the county branch of the CPRE the Countryside Charity, and (depending on the type of impact of the proposed development) the Ramblers Association, the RSPB and local wildlife trusts.

The content of responses must be based on ‘material considerations’. The most important of these are the NPPF, the local plan, the neighbourhood plan, and other formal guidance notes as well as previous decisions by planning inspectors. References to local and neighbourhood plans should cite the specific policies that the proposed development breaches. References to the NPPF should be to the most recent version and cite the particular paragraph in the document.

Other material considerations taken into account by the LPA, including:
▸    Loss of privacy or light caused by overshadowing.
▸    Whether the development will worsen local parking problems.
▸    The amount of local traffic generated and its impact on highway safety.
▸    The effect on listed buildings and conservation areas. This includes proposed development near (‘in the curtilage’) of these features.
▸    The capacity of the local physical and social infrastructure to cope with the proposed development. This includes the impact on local schools and primary healthcare.
▸    The layout and density of the proposed buildings (including design, appearance and materials).
▸    Whether there is sufficient access for disabled people.
▸    The impact on wildlife and biodiversity.
▸    Landscaping and the loss or effect on trees. Building near a large tree can affect its roots and eventually kill it.

Some things are not material considerations in considering planning applications, and should be avoided in writing an objection. These are:
▸    Negative effect on the value of properties.
▸    Dislike of the developer/applicant.
▸    Matters controlled under building regulations or other legislation, such as structural stability, fire precautions, matters covered by licences etc.
▸    Private issues between neighbours e.g. land/boundary disputes, damage to property,
▸    Problems arising during the construction period from noise, dust, and construction vehicles.
▸    Applicant’s personal circumstances (unless exceptionally and clearly relevant, e.g. provision of facilities for someone with a physical disability).
▸    Opposition to business competition.

It is a waste of time objecting to an aspect of the development that conforms to the local or neighbourhood plan. For instance, if the neighbourhood plan specifies a settlement boundary for a village, it is pointless to object to an application to build dwellings on a site within that boundary on the grounds that no houses should be built at all. However, it may be possible to object for other reasons, such as too high a density, or inappropriate design.

One issue that is particularly contentious is that a development would result in the loss of a view. Developers argue that ‘There is no right to a view’, but replacing a view of open fields with a view of a large back fence is a loss of residential amenity. The loss of views for many people counts as a negative visual impact and may be in breach of protected views in the neighbourhood plan and policies in the local plan to protect the countryside.

Statements of objections should be supported by evidence. Action groups can collect their own data on issues like biodiversity and traffic flows. It is important to check all the reports comprising the application for accuracy. As noted above, these are paid for by the applicant and almost always support the proposed development. But they are usually completed by people unfamiliar with the locality and may contain partial or incorrect information. Some examples:
▸    Transport reports which include multiple statistics estimating traffic flows (usually based on a database called ‘TRACS’), but which fail to state the total annual increase in motor vehicle traffic from the development. This is important data because its impact on the sustainability of the proposed development.
▸    LVIAs which rate the local landscape as ‘moderate’, based on what at first seems systematic methodology, but which is in reality little more than a personal judgement. LVIA reports may fail to include photographs, or, include photois which show the landscape in the most unflattering light. Hardly any include visualisations of what the development would be like if completed.

It is important to Include pictures as part of the evidence. Human beings are visually-dominant, and respond far more to pictures than to pages of text or statistics. An example is the photograph below, taken on the road to the local school, which was included as evidence against an assertion that the locality had a moderate level of traffic when the schools were opening and closing.

 

Finally, the objection should be laid out as a well-written and professional-looking report (preferably as a pdf), and attached as a file when submitting it to the local planning authority website.