In search of beauty in Scotland’s National Planning Framework

The eagerly awaited publication of the draft National Planning Framework 4 1 is an important moment for planning in Scotland, but currently there is no mention of the need for creating beauty in development. Julie Waldron sees this as an important oversight and explains why

Julie Waldron

I have a passion for creating beautiful, biodiverse, healthy, climate adapted places that inspire and uplift people. And I know I am not alone in wanting to live in a beautiful place. However, there is a reluctance to define beauty in policy wording; it may be considered intangible or beyond definition. So, I set about researching the concept and the science of beauty.

To begin, I went on the hunt for ‘beauty’ in the draft policy document. In Part One (2) ‘beauty’ is only mentioned when describing the existing rural heartlands of the North and the Coast, and it is not a mentioned in Part Two. In Part Three, the policy section, the Six Qualities of Successful places are described, but not in the context of defining beautiful spaces. Attractive places are linked to sustainability but not to the ‘distinctive’ quality of a successful place.

‘Attractive’ and ‘beauty’ are used interchangeably in existing Scottish policy documents (3) , but the current Scottish Planning Policy mainly relates the term ‘attractive’ to housing and not place. (4) The recently published ‘Levelling up’ White Paper (5) does however clearly articulate the need for beauty – ‘…it will pioneer design and beauty, promoting better architectural aesthetics to ensure they enhance existing settlements, gladden the eye and lift the heart’

I believe that the hesitancy to use the word ‘beautiful’ in NPF 4 is a missed opportunity as we now know that beauty is linked it to positive mental health outcomes, faster healing rates and more pain tolerance in humans. So it is interesting to ask – why is it missing from NPF4?

In his book, On Beauty – a history of a modern idea, Umberto Eco reminds us ‘a beautiful thing is something that would make us happy if it were ours, but remains beautiful even if it belongs to someone else’ 6 and, ‘the beautiful object that by virtue of its form delights the senses, especially sight and hearing.’

And we recognise that fashion changes. For example, the feminine form has been explored extensively in art and the ideals for feminine beauty have altered. David Bainbridge in Curvology (7) attempts to describe the biological imperative behind the interest in feminine curves. Similarly, the fashion for what are considered beautiful landscapes has also altered over time. In 2015, the report ‘A Community Right to Beauty’ (8) found that ‘People like places that feel like places, characterised by an identifiable palate of qualities: nature and greenery, but also scale and proportion; light, peacefulness, and distinctiveness, both in the sense of difference and of rootedness in the character of an area – capturing the spirit of a place, either of who we are or who we want to be. The quality of materials used and the standard of upkeep also matter.’ The authors went on to point toward the root cause of the reluctance, ‘Yet much conspires against taking beauty seriously in much of policy making, which is more comfortable in dealing with the easily quantifiable.

If we put our cultural influences of what we consider beautiful to one side, what does the science say? What is the immediate innate response to places and objects?

And why and how did beauty evolve? (9) Certain things have remained constant such as the golden ratio, symmetry and fractal patterns hardwired into our brains, which most likely comes from pattern recognition, based in nature and helping us to survive. But, in the context of negotiating with developers in our professional lives, this fact does not help as some people are more interested in other issues.

Years ago, I asked Nature Scot for research on beauty and one study, which concerned wind turbines, found around 85% of people cared about impacts and about 15% didn’t. This makes sense as the initial response and perception of beauty is a combination of so many factors: genetics, epigenetics, nutrition, sensitivity, where you grew up, childhood experiences etc, – such complex combinations in nature normally follow a normal distribution curve of results and the result is differences in the wiring of people’s brains. 10 These minute differences could help explain why most people (about 85%-95%) are affected by beauty, a smaller number deeply affected and a similar number far less so. From experience these individuals rank other issues, such as economics or practicality more highly. But I believe most people are likely to feel affected and recognise the impacts of beauty on their lives.

Brunstane Burn

© Margaret McKay

Draft report of NPF4

© Scottish Government

I decided to ‘test’ this theory in a training session in the department – with many planners in the room we learnt about trees and beauty and then I asked questions to assess how sensitive my audience was to beauty. Not surprisingly most people agreed a higher-than-average level of sensitivity – but not all. Similarly, I was speaking at a CIWEM (11) Conference on Sustainable Drainage and put in a section about beauty, and again, most participants rated themselves as affected, some highly affected. Whilst not very scientific, it was reassuring that the majority of people are concerned about beauty. Allowing people to understand that if they are not interested in beauty and that they represent the minority is important and was for one colleague an eye opener.

This perhaps explains some of the hesitancy around the use of the word in policy. Some individuals will be uncomfortable using ‘beauty’ and their seniority will influence its use. It follows that the larger the consultation group, the greater the chance of finding a few individuals strongly against using the actual word ‘beauty’ due to how they are personally affected by beauty. However, just as surgeons have gone on their own quests to understand beauty to help when reconstructing people’s faces, (12) we should never give up negotiating hard for beauty. Planners are frequently reminded of the importance of beauty in objection letters where people object to ugly intrusions into their city, and we are working for the majority of people in any town or city. I recall one meeting with a volume housebuilder, so frustrated with me he stood up, leaned right over me and grimaced in my face. I noted that we would never agree as I was seeking a beautiful place and his focus was housing that could or could not be beautiful depending on the quality of the design and the materials.

As part of the Water Vision (13) report for City of Edinburgh in 2020, I deliberately used the word beauty in my last bulletin point and I would recommend to use the word in policy wherever possible. The majority of society care deeply and are affected by the beauty of their surroundings, even if subconsciously. It is to be hoped, then, that the Scottish Government is comfortable with adding the word ‘beauty’ in the final NPF document.

Julie Waldron is Senior Landscape and Water Planning Officer, Edinburgh City Council.

References

1) Scottish Government, Local Government and Communities Directorate (2021) Scotland 2045 - fourth National Planning Framework - draft: consultation ( on line ) https://www. transformingplanning.scot/national-planningframework/

2) Scottish Government, Local Government and Communities Directorate (2021) Scotland 2045 - fourth National Planning Framework - draft: consultation ( on line ) Part One https://www.gov.scot/publications/ scotland-2045-fourth-national-planning-frameworkdraft/pages/3/

3) Scottish Government, Local Government and Communities Directorate (2011)

Green Infrastructure: design and Placemaking (on line) pages 1,4,6,7,9,11,12 https://www.gov. scot/publications/green-infrastructure-designplacemaking/

Scottish Government, Local Government and Communities Directorate (2013) A policy statement on Architecture and place for Scotland (on line) pages 19,27 https://www.gov.scot/publications/creatingplaces-policy-statement-architecture-place-scotland/ pages/3/

4) Scottish Government, Local Government and Communities Directorate (2020) Scottish Planning Policy (on line) para 21, 43, 110

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottishplanning-policy/pages/8/

5) HM Government 2022 Levelling up the United Kingdom pages XXIV, https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/1052708/Levelling_ up_the_UK_white_paper.pdf

6) Umberto E (2010) ‘On Beauty – A history of a Western Idea’ – MacLehose Press

7) Bainbridge, D (2015) Curvology: The Origins and Power of Female Body Shape – Portobello Books

8) Harvey, Adrian: Julian, Caroline A Community Right to Beauty: giving communities the power to shape, enhance and create beautiful places, developments and spaces.

Res Publica (Report available: http:/www.respublica. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Right-to- Beauty-Final-1.pdf 2015

9) Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell – (2018) Why Beautiful Things Make us Happy – Beauty Explained (online) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O5kNPlUV7w

10) Raine A (2014) The Anatomy of Violence, Vintage Books

Spector T Professor (2013) Identically Different – Why you can change your genes, Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Perlumutter D (2015) – Brain Maker, Yellow Kite

Aron E (1999) The Highly sensitive Person, HarperCollins

11) CIWEM – Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management

12) Shanahan C MD and Shanahan L (2018) Deep Nutrition – Why your Genes Need Traditional Food, Chapter 4, Dynamic Symmetry The beauty health connection, Flatiron Books

13) City of Edinburgh Council A Vision for Water Management (2020)

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/ file/30101/vision-for-water-management-in-the-cityof-edinburgh