The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

This is an article I wrote in this last weekend's Yorkshire Post. Do please let me have any comments!

As a panel member for Design Yorkshire, I’ve recently helped review a proposal for a new house, designed under the auspices of Paragraph 84. This is a paragraph in the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] which potentially allows development in the open countryside where the design is ‘truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and - would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.’

The design under review has the makings to be a truly outstanding piece of architecture, possibly one of the most striking homes in the north of England-yet the journey to achieve success will have to counter numerous strategic planning policy issues. Whilst I recognise we need such policies, perhaps they run the risk of negating outstanding designs? This was the question I was left with after the review. Clearly, we need policies in place to justify planning applications which hopefully sift the good from the bad-yet what place the exceptional? I firmly believe that great design, no matter what the scale, has the ability to positively enhance our lives and the places we inhabit. Sadly, we see all too often mediocre designs becoming reality and the built environment suffering as a consequence. Having said that, the NPPF does in fact encourage good design. In the framework document it notes that ‘The creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this.’ I would like to think there is opportunity for exceptional design to be recognised over and above such criteria. It is acknowledged that a poorly designed building will be considerably more costly in the long run, both in terms of the cost of making changes after construction and the cost to wellbeing and psychological health. Great architectural design by contrast, pays for itself, saving time, money and indeed mental health.

As we embark on a new political era, I would encourage the new government to heed these aspirations. With the need to create many more homes of all tenures across the country [particularly affordable homes], we must not lose sight of design issues. It will be all too easy in the rush to build, that design takes second place over numbers. This is not an acceptable approach. We should equip all the decision makers with the skill set required to determine the good, bad and the ugly. For it is the ‘good’ which will be to the benefit of future generations. We do have the skills within the built environment sector to contribute to the debate. I would hope that the government employs professional advisors to sit alongside politicians to assist with decision making moving forwards, so that we create a built environment to cherish and enjoy. Perhaps even to create buildings which are truly outstanding!

?

?