Refocusing on beauty in the planning system

Living with Beauty, the report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission attempted to put beauty at the heart of planning. Two years later, Kate Bailey looks at whether this idea can be salvaged.

Cover of the report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission from which all images for this article have been taken

© Department for Levelling Up Communities and Local Government

by Kate Bailey

I have to admit that, when it’s uttered by government ministers and their advisers, the word ‘beauty’ sets my teeth on edge. I can’t accept that a consistent ideal of ‘aesthetic beauty’ is shared by different cultures and sectors of society, nor that it can be mandated by the adoption of new rules for a planning profession that is rarely design-trained. Personally, I was dismayed by the (effectively abandoned) Planning White Paper proposals (2020) to “draw inspiration from the idea of design codes and pattern books that built Bath, Belgravia and Bournville.”

A quick online search reveals the extraordinary diversity of architectural styles across regions and nations around the globe. Reviews of award-winning modern buildings mention simple forms, flowing lines, inspirational spaces and the penetration of natural light more often than ‘beauty’. To me, the Sydney Opera House is instantly recognisable; the Icelandic church in Reykjavik is an inspired landmark; the Marina Bay Hotel in Singapore is a technical marvel; Frank Lloyd Wright’s ‘Fallingwater’ house is an architectural masterpiece; and the delightful Frank Gehry ‘Dancing House’ in Prague brings a smile to my face. But can any of these famous examples be said to be ‘beautiful’ in any conventional sense? Might some people describe them as ‘ugly’?

Architectural preferences are personal and, in my view, style is the least interesting aspect of building design. I was always taught that form follows function and I agree with Ray Eames – “the ‘looks good’ can change, but what works, works.” If a building is designed well, at a human scale, with high quality modern materials and practical, comfortable spaces inside and out, then it will become an attractive home for someone regardless of any superficial details added to the front face.

You may remember that the purpose of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission was “to tackle the challenge of poor-quality design and build of homes and places, across the country and help ensure as we build for the future, we do so with popular consent” (Commission terms of reference). Their final report ‘Living with Beauty’ (2020) is illustrated with examples of fine buildings that are, on the whole, relentlessly symmetrical (The Piece Hall, Halifax), often in high density urban locations (Savoy Circus, London), reflecting Georgian proportions (Bourne Estate), or in romantic rural settings (vivid sunset over Malmesbury), or ‘pastiche’ villages (The Wintles, Shropshire). These images demonstrate a distinct preference for the charming, the rural, the nostalgic – and a very firm dislike of the modern, the innovative and the utilitarian.

The BBBB executive summary does, however, offer some important advice: “We advocate an integrated approach, in which all matters relevant to placemaking are considered from the outset and subjected to a democratic or co-design process ... We advocate a radical programme for the greening of our towns and cities, for achieving environmental targets, and for regenerating abandoned places.” Phew! I’m not sure that design codes will achieve the desired result, but at least the title of the report has a sub-heading that the LI can support: ‘Promoting health, well-being and sustainable growth’.

The ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper (2020) was heavily influenced by the BBBB Commission. It talked about a “fast track to beauty” of “high quality developments where they reflect local character and preferences.” Local preferences? I would suggest that many homeowners fiercely defend the style of house that they themselves chose because they’ve sunk their savings into it and their children have grown up there, even if it’s draughty, leaky, old fashioned, costly to heat and their children have left home. Is it unkind to describe them as unimaginative and resistant to change? The planning process has long been concerned with local character and appearance, but it achieves wildly varying outcomes in different postcode areas. The new Design Codes are intended to define what is or is not acceptable in planning terms, but does anyone know how to deliver house designs that are “provably popular”? If we look around recent housing estates, what is ‘popular’ tends to include cars parked on front gardens, high fences for privacy and a distinct absence of trees that would potentially drop leaves onto their front gardens. In 2021, during the pandemic, the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Parliamentary Committee considered the Government’s proposed reforms to the planning system (‘Planning for the Future’ 2020). The Committee’s report of June 2021 ‘Future of the Planning System’ advised the government that the enhancement of design and beauty in the planning system “needs to consider a broader definition of design than one focused on aesthetics. This should include ensuring innovations in design are not unduly stifled and the subjective nature of beauty is recognised.”

When considering evidence on design and beauty (section 10), the HCLG Committee was told that “it is clearly not a legitimate purpose for the planning system to impose the personal stylistic preferences of the more vocal members of the community on the wider community.” Their overall recommendation in this section was that “the Government must ensure that its [design policies] reflect the broadest meaning of design, encompassing function, placemaking, and the internal quality of the housing as a place to live in, alongside its external appearance. Given the problems with defining beauty, and to ensure a wider approach to design, there should also not be a ‘fast track for beauty’.”

During many years of facilitating community engagement workshops in different locations, I often concluded that the main reasons that the people with the loudest voices objected to proposals for new housing estates related to the numbers of additional dwellings proposed for an established neighbourhood, suburban area or rural village. Protesters often focus on the perceived pressures of more cars on their roads, the numbers of additional people who will overwhelm their utilities and local facilities, and the ‘vast’ areas of greenfield land that are being built on. Green Belt policies are robustly supported not because Green Belt land is beautiful (much of it is neglected grazing land), but because such policies provide an effective mechanism for keeping new development at bay.

However, in many rural locations, where property prices are high and many houses are used infrequently as second homes or holiday lets, this new requirement for the planning system to deliver beautiful new homes seems to me to be neglecting the valid concerns of existing communities. As a ‘Places Matter’ Design Review panellist, it is clear to me that many proposals for new housing fail to take account of the needs of the whole community and the wider environment, particularly where development will place increased pressure on under-resourced local services such as schools, health facilities, parks and public spaces.

For me, one of the few positive consequences of COVID lockdowns has been a welcome shift in our conversations about new housing developments, with greater emphasis on access to local services, walkable neighbourhoods, priority for pedestrians and cyclists over vehicles, outdoor spaces for health and exercise, contact with nature and biodiversity gains.

The most recent Queen’s Speech referred to the DLUHC ‘Levelling up and Regeneration’ policy paper (published 11 May 2022), which will hopefully go some way towards addressing these issues. “In the Bill – we have taken important steps to make sure that good design which reflects community preferences is a key objective of the planning system, reflecting the important recommendations of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. This includes the National Model Design Code and stronger national policy on the importance of good design; changes which are already having positive effects.” (DLUHC 2022)

It is to be hoped that the DLUHC Minister Michael Gove can find a way to resolve the apparent tensions between the planning emphasis on codified design and beauty, the failure of the housing market to provide affordable and liveable places for diverse groups of people, the Defra/ Environment Act emphasis on biodiversity net gain and nature recovery, and the BIES focus on energy security and the current government’s ‘Plan for Growth’.

I would suggest these mixed messages point to the need for the landscape profession to focus the attention of our clients and allied professions firmly on providing an urgent and consistent response to the climate and biodiversity emergencies. The DLUHC minister has accepted that planning for a sustainable climateresilient future means considering “all matters relevant to placemaking” (BBBB summary). We know, and must continue to advise, that successful placemaking also means listening out for, and taking account of, the views of under-represented groups within our society in order to understand what ‘beautiful’ design means to their local communities.

Our job is to create beauty in the places we design for everyone to enjoy. We do this by masterplanning with nature-based solutions, by codesigning attractive, multifunctional and healthy residential and commercial environments, and by contributing to design codes that promote the creation of sustainable, climate resilient and ecologically rich neighbourhoods.

Our ambition should be to become the most trusted of all the built environment professions to deliver healthy multifunctional spaces and places, that can be appreciated as beautifully designed, at the same time as providing climate-resilient environmental and social benefits for the communities we serve.

Kate Bailey is chair of the Landscape Institute Policy Committee, writing in a personal capacity.