'The government has presided over a decade of disastrous housing design and must raise standards immediately'

The design of new housing developments in England is overwhelmingly ‘mediocre’ or ‘poor’, with less affluent communities the worst affected, according to a national audit conducted by University College London for CPRE, the countryside charity, and the Place Alliance.
A housing design audit for England reveals that 75 per cent of new housing development should not have gone ahead due to ‘mediocre’ or ‘poor’ design.
The report, an audit of more than 140 housing developments built across England since 2007, found that one in five of these developments should have been refused planning permission as their poor design was contrary to advice given in the National Planning Policy Framework.
A further 54 per cent should not have been granted permission without significant improvements to their design having been made first.

The audit also found:
• Less affluent communities were 10 times more likely to get worse design, even though better design is affordable
• Low-scoring housing developments scored especially badly in terms of character and sense of place, with architecture that did not respond to the context in which it was located
• The worst reported aspects of design included developments dominated by access roads and the poor integration of storage, bins and car-parking, leading to unattractive and unfriendly environments with probable negative health and social implications
• Some gains had been made – schemes scored relatively highly for safety and security and were also typically successful at integrating a variety of sizes of house

Professor Matthew Carmona (The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL), chair of the Place Alliance, who led the research, said: “Research has consistently shown that high-quality design makes new residential developments more acceptable to local communities and delivers huge social, economic and environmental value to all, yet we are still failing in this regard across England.
“Planning authorities are under pressure to deliver new homes and are therefore prioritising numbers in the short term over the long-term negative impacts of bad design.
“At the same time, housebuilders have little incentive to improve when their designs continue to pass through the planning system. Some highways authorities, meanwhile, do not even recognise their role in creating a sense of place for communities.  
“Collectively, housebuilders, planning authorities and highways authorities need to significantly raise their game. This can’t come soon enough.”
Tom Fyans, campaigns and policy director at CPRE, the countryside charity, said: “The government has presided over a decade of disastrous housing design and must raise standards immediately.
“This research is utterly damning of larger housebuilders and their failure to build the homes our communities deserve.
“They must
significantly raise their game if we are to create the sorts of places that
future generations will feel proud to call home. It’s no wonder so many of our
communities feel apprehensive towards new development when the design is so
poor. That’s why significantly improving the quality of design is central to
addressing the housing shortage.”

Recommendations from the research
The audit proposed a range of recommendations for the government, housebuilders and local government. Among these the research found strong benefits in designing at higher densities than is the norm.
The government should be more prescriptive in seeking less sprawling densities, as more compact developments tend to be designed more sensitively. It should require highways design that helps to create high-quality, characterful places.
Housebuilders need to drive greater ambition across the sector to advance a more ethical approach to the design of development that prioritises the long-term social well-being of their customers and the health of the environment at large.
Local authorities need to use proactive design codes – design parameters established for each site – and design review processes for all major housing schemes.
Local authorities also need to end the current disconnect between highways design and planning aspirations when it comes to new housing areas.
Schemes that do not meet minimum requirements should be refused on design grounds and this should be supported, without question, by the government regardless of progress towards meeting housing targets in the area.

• You can read the full report here:

• A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
• There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
• There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.

The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:

• There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
• A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
• Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
• Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.

Concerns about the rush to submit the plan

The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.

As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.

Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.

Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.

The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.

Further information

• Read more on the Swale Local Plan
• Read CPRE Kent’s detailed comments on the plan
• View the council’s consultation document