Conclusion

The tool referred to as village design statements ( VDSs)

UK from the 1990s Ireland ten years later

Irish context Irish context

Celtic Tiger’

Boom period took Village design and distinctiveness place in a culture that has not traditionally placed a high value upon the designed historic built environment.

concerns over loss of local distinctiveness

The application of the VDSs model is still emerging and evolving

Exploring the conceptual territory associated with character and place distinctiveness.

Detail on the key characteristics of the VDS

Different spatial planning approaches to maintaining small town character

UK Ireland

Conceptualising place distinctiveness

02

Concepts Character Placelessness Sense of place

Photo Source: Rural Ireland

Two o ideas

Result

That the distinctive character of a place is the sum of its physical attributes and visual appearance (tangible attributes).

The relationship between people and place.

Places may be subject to the meanings people apply to them. The relative value that people assign to physical places.

So we take delight in physically distinctive, recognizable locales and attach our feelings and meanings to them.

Photo Source: Rural Ireland ● The sense people have of a place, understood as the sum of all physical as well as symbolic values in nature and the human environment’ ● The broader relationship between people, place, and identity. ● People’s sense of place identity – their attachment to a place – is formed ‘through individuals’ transactions with their environment’, ● The definition and conservation of heritage.

This is closely related to

Public identifies as important to the character of a place may be quite different from the priorities embedded within professional discourses)

Physical qualities of places cannot be considered in planning policy and practice without simultaneously also taking people-place relationships into account

Contends that planning theory has tended to almost exclusively focus on the physicality of places, and to largely ignore intangible qualities

Rural settlement planning & design

03

Village design statements ( VDSs)

UK Ireland

Part of a wider shift towards greater involvement of the public in planning across many European countries

Addressing social, economic and environmental improvement concerns

Specific concerns around the erosion of the distinctive character of villages

Theory of rural development

“Stresses the individuality of localities, the empowerment of local people and the need for development activists to work with local communities not simply in, for, or through them ”

This wider shift has resulted in the emergence of a range of policy processes and responses, each of which can play an important role in capacity building and in closer coordination of strategic planning with community priorities

In relation to the USA context

Discuss the loss of character resulting from the imposition of standard design requirements in land use zoning, and a response rooted in a new urbanist approach to planning, achieved through community-based guidelines

In relation to small towns in Australia

Encompassing ‘Environmental aesthetics, community sentiment and identity, naturalness, change, uniqueness and affective responses to the environment’

The most notable is an emphasis on intangible attributes, such as the relationship between place and the personal and collective identity of the people that live there – elements not as strongly or clearly considered within UK and Irish village design efforts

In the early 1990s, the UK focused on smaller rural settlements and understanding local needs and priorities

The form of layouts designed around purpose-built access roads of regulation dimensions with groups of similar houses arranged in culs-de-sac Suburban forms are transplanted into villages Houses, usually detached or semi-detached, sometimes deliberately set back to give a spurious ‘variety’ They have large windows and shallow roofs Each has a garage, sometimes two, attached to the side of the house

This form of unsympathetic standardisation led over time to an ingrained view that any form of new development ‘inevitably detracts from the character of villages’. In turn, this led to the adoption of restraint policies relating to rural housing development in many development plans. However, blanket restraint policies are contrary to the sustainability of small rural settlements, particularly resulting from a focus largely upon reducing CO2 emissions, with- out sufficient cognisance of other dimensions of sustainable development

The VDS initiative therefore also sought to address these issues, and to foster a positive but discriminating attitude to development in small rural settlements, contributing to their social and economic vitality – and thereby, their sustainability

VDSs became established in planning practice, sometimes in a systematic fashion through adoption and use as supplementary planning guidance

While the VDS model is community-led, the information gathered is framed by a professional – normally appointed by the local community, itself VDSs were seen as fitting better with higher forms of strategic plan due to their clearer framing, and thereby came to be regarded as an effective means of addressing concerns about loss of local distinctiveness

VDSs are of use within the formal planning system to address the loss of local distinctiveness in villages through the:

1

VDSs provide design guidance for architects, builders and developers

2

VDSs can provide guidance on how new development can be sensitive and appropriate to its local setting

3

VDSs provide an insight into what makes a specific place distinctive

4

VDSs foster better understanding by local planning authority officers

5

VDSs provide planning authorities with a clearer and firmer basis on which decisions can be based and justified

6

VDSs add another layer of influence at a different level from the statutory process

A tool for involving local communities in the design and setting of new development

The form of public engagement in VDSs is situated at a higher level than ‘tokenism’ on Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation – and thereby offers more substantive involvement than many other planning initiatives – they may be of less interest than alternative local planning tools with a broader scope (focused on responsiveness to social and economic needs as well as design issues)

There is often a tension between top-down plans (which seek to meet strategic objectives and coordinate wider interests), and bottom-up community-led efforts

To overcome these tensions?!

Point to the importance of effectively bridging top-down (strategic,

development plans and local area

plans) and bottom-up (VDSs etc.) forms of planning. More specifically, there needs to be an awareness among all of what the 'other level' can contribute, and a continuous flow of information, for successful bridging to occur Their content can often be easier to reconcile with more strategic local planning frameworks than other forms of local community-led plan, as they are narrower in scope and more consistent

In relation to spatial planning

Bridging of community-led plans with strategic plans

Frame and integrate community-led plans into top-down strategic plans

Erosion of village distinctiveness in Ireland

04

Towns fall into a number of overlapping functional categories,

Most had a market function, or formerly serviced an adjacent landlord estate,

Though rural settlements’ traditional market and service functions

Are largely the result of successive waves of colonial settlement, much of the building stock within towns, often lacking in ornamentation and modest in scale, dates from the19century

Villages and Small Towns in Ireland

In England, where development in villages has often been characterised as harmful,

Ireland’s planning culture is characterised by relatively permissive laissez-faire planning policies

Laissez-faire

Is an economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from or almost free from any form of economic interventionism such as regulation and subsidies. A high value has not traditionally been placed upon the designed historic built environment .

And a national system for the statutory protection of built heritage was only put in place as late as 2000.

These factors, together with shifts towards default generic suburban housing design, and an unprecedented rate of development during the so-called ‘Celtic Tiger’ boom period, have combined to shrink the distinctiveness of Irish villages, and similar concerns around loss of distinctiveness have been expressed including among the wider public

Cer tain civil society organisations, notably

Taisce (the Irish National Trust) Friends of the Irish Environment

have been particularly vocal in campaigning against the erosion of the character of Irish towns and villages. A system of development control (now management), operated by local authorities, has existed in Ireland since 1963, and local authorities have statutory responsibility for

strategic planning and

development management, though the Depar tment of Housing, Community and Local Government has an overarching policymaking role.

Ireland's Authorities

county, city, and large town development plans are updated once every 6

years

since 2000, local authorities have also been required to prepare Local Area Plans (LAPs) for settlements with over 5,000 population ، and at the discretion of the local authority for smaller settlements.

LAPs are the lowest level of the statutory planning system and, given their broader scope, are an important complementary form of plan alongside VDSs.

Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, local authorities have statutory responsibilities with respect to built heritage.

local authorities’ role

Village design statements in Ireland

05

specifically in relation to the loss of local distinctiveness in rural settlements, VDSs were brought to Ireland by the Heritage Council in 2000, though with a stronger emphasis on loss of heritage as well as distinctiveness

The VDS model revised in 2006

to become more participative and by 2008 around 40 VDSs has been prepared.

a review of the programme conducted by CCRI concluded that it had on the whole not been successful in meeting its stated aims and objectives

Few VDSs in Ireland had been initiated and produced by local communities, despite this being the Heritage Council’s initial intention, and no VDSs were adopted as supplementary guidance by local planning authorities.

In the small number of cases where a VDS was deemed in the report to be successful in meeting its objectives,

this was seen as being because the local community valued the character of the town, local authority officials were actively engaged (resulting in its extensive use in planning decision-making), but also because an individual within the local authority took on a leadership role throughout the process. in Julianstown, Co. Meath, and Sandymount, an urban village within the boundaries of Dublin City. Building on these, the Heritage Council published a village design ‘Toolkit’، which includes a checklist of heritage and design elements that should be considered within the scope of the statement, as well as eight steps that aim to guide a community in preparation of a VDS.

Following the review of the first phase of the VDS programme, the Heritage Council commenced a second phase with two pilot projects,

Two projects VDS and

Crucially, it also recognises the relationship between the ‘sense of place created by a village’s cultural heritage’ and ‘a community’s sense of identity’ The overarching approach within the guidance clearly recognises and emphasises the role and importance of a community led, collaborative and participative approach.

With respect to the relationship between VDSs and wider layers of strategic planning,

while current national guidelines relating to the preparation of Local Area Plans refer to the role of VDSs and other supplementary planning guidance,

They warn that these must be, ‘consistent with the parameters laid down by statutory plans, to guide specific development proposals’.

VDS and national policy, guidelines suggest a more top-down style than the more deliberative, associative, or collaborative approaches

Limerick seeks to implement VDSs where no Local Area Plan exists, and to identify the need for social and community infrastructure though VDSs, contradicting lessons from elsewhere.

Cork County Council emphasises that VDSs should be consistent with Local Area Plan Policy, though it is unclear whether this might be achieved in a top-down or more collaborative manner.

VDSs are becoming increasingly integrated into the statutory planning system

Some of the most recently published VDSs have been instigated by the local community, are prepared on the basis of the Heritage Council’s Toolkit, and feature a strong emphasis on the role of the community in their formulation

In relation to the broader content of these recent VDSs, key ambitions and actions still include issues outside the normative scope of a VDS, e.g. increasing the provision of community facilities, or instigation of a community renewable power scheme

While landscape, ecology, green infrastructure and biodiversity are listed as considerations within the Heritage Council’s Toolkit, reflecting much earlier suggestions around the appropriate scope of VDSs

While this may to some extent reflect local priorities, previous lessons around the success of VDSs in both the UK and Ireland suggest that the broadening of VDSs’ scope may not be appropriate or successful Echoing Murray (2016), this implies a need for a more expansive approach to village planning in Ireland to encompass social, economic and cultural dimensions.

Conclusion

06

defined village distinctiveness as the “physical character ”, as seen by inhabitants and other users.

This obviously means that the local public must continue to play a leading role in the formulation of VDSs and other related effor ts community led planning effor ts that seek to provide place-specific guidelines to ensure the sensitivity of design and development to local distinctive character.

essential that guidance and planning practices relating to design and local distinctiveness must seek to find and employ novel and appropriate tools to break down barriers between professionals and the public in conversations around the intangible qualities of places .

THANK YOU