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?