Nigel Booen, chartered architect and Director of Design, Boyer, looks at ‘gentle density’ and whether Georgian style development is the best means of delivering it.
Density, often expressed (presumably for political purposes) as ‘gentle density’ is a central theme of the National Planning Policy Framework and, as such, directly influences the development of all new communities.
And, at the time of writing this, it looks like it’s here to stay: the Georgian style is clearly a favourite with political parties and local communities. Building More, Building Beautiful: How design and style can unlock the housing crisis, a forerunner to the work of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, used extensive polling which showed that in the design of new homes, traditional building design was much preferred over contemporary architecture. Across all demographics, a large majority agreed that newly built properties should fit in with their surroundings. Support was used to substantiate the claim that NIMBYism (standing for not in my back yard!) can be overcome if design better reflects people’s desire for traditional architecture.
The style is exemplified at Poundbury, the new community developed by the Duchy of Cornwall in Dorset, which is Georgian not only in its density but in every aspect of its design. Properties at Poundbury sell for 55% more per hectare due to a combination of public preferences and higher densities, according to analysis by Create Streets.
To understand whether ‘gentle density’ can benefit the quality and quantity of new developments requires a definition – not having had a place in the planning lexicon until now. That’s where the problems start. ‘Density’ is relatively straightforward as it can be measured in quantifiable terms; a relatively simple function of homes and site area. ‘Gentle’ means very little in a planning and design context but its function, on any plain reading, is clearly to limit density rather than increase it. The deceit in the wording is it purports to enable a higher volume of housebuilding, while also giving leeway to appease anti-development communities as necessary.
It is no coincidence that most political parties have promoted the Georgian style of architecture as synonymous with gentle density. Not only is this style of architecture popular, but Georgian-style housing can achieve up to 40-60 homes per hectare, which is significantly more than the average housing development – typically 30-35 homes per hectare on comparable greenfield sites.
However, this comparison should be considered in context. While 60 homes per hectare may be considered dense in rural and suburban areas, it bears no comparison to a 40 storey apartment block in a city centre location.
Furthermore, many question whether the Georgian style of architecture espoused at Poundbury should be mandated as the future of good design.
Georgian architecture may represent the very best in design to some; to others the repurposing of a centuries-old style is regarded defeatist, retrograde, even ‘Disneyesque’. Perhaps schemes such as Poundbury will be effective notonly in encouraging NIMBYs to accept development, but in even higher density than they might have otherwise tolerated.But this only works in those areas where the average density is lower than a typical neo-Georgian development. Take that approach in London and the perfectly acceptable densities currently achieved will be lost, homes will become increasingly scarce, house prices will sky-rocket and local centres will become desolate and unviable.
Over the last parliament we have seen ‘beauty’ and ‘gentle density’ embedded in both planning policy and case law. Through design codes, we have the structure to deliver, as the then Secretary of State Robert Jenrick said introducing the concept in 2020, a ‘higher regard’ on quality and design – one, he said, which draws on ‘the idea of design codes and pattern books that built Bath, Belgravia and Bournville’.
But we still lack anything constructive to prevent other housebuilders from failing on ‘beauty’ grounds. This was clearly demonstrated last April when the Secretary of State Michael Gove called in and subsequently refused planning permission for a 165 home development by Berkeley Homes in Cranbrook, Kent. The outcome of the Berkeley case was ‘no’ but not ‘no, because beauty is…’. This potential test case is crying out for a clear definition of beauty, a clear selection of criteria and is yet to be addressed.
In practice this (and similar, subsequent decisions) makes the whole process of designing new developments more fraught with uncertainty. And uncertainty is the last thing we need at the moment, with so many other uncertainties with the planningsystem. Unfortunately, it provides ammunition for planning committees to refuse other schemes on similar grounds. Without anyone knowing what the benchmark is, design could be an easy target to justify refusal – which, as some have suggested, was perhaps the Government’s main objective.
