Gove, beauty and a curious tale from Kent
Eek. Only days away from Summer. The sun generally in the sky. A giddy time of year to be a #planorak. For so long, we’ve faced the yawns, watch-checking and glazed-over stares of friends and family whilst droning on again about stasis in the planning system, desperate crises in plan-making and housing delivery, and the need for a national discussion about the Green Belt. Or is that just me? Well, yawn no more, ye of little faith. Because we may be a year away, but election season is already rolling into view. And we can tell that things are getting serious because this was the week that Green Belt reform made front page news, right next to Dame Helen herself:
Heck, Sir Keir even started almost making sense about the green belt live on national television. Sheesh. Impressive. But come on, Keir. We all love the Lake District, but it’s at least 50 miles from the nearest splodge of green belt. The old chestnut - conflating green belt with national parks, AONBs and the countryside at large - is alive and kicking. Even though Labour are starting to make some really interesting noises. And even when, as you all know (sing it with me) the green belt has nothing to do with scenic beauty, high quality landscapes, ecology, biodiversity or anything more than curbing urban “sprawl”. And… how to put this… down in the local authority trenches, a fair few Labour councillors aren’t exactly on board with this reform agenda (here’s one exhibit of many). Only 1 day later and Rishi’s already punching back. So there we are. The choice facing a nation. “Allowing more homes on the green belt” vs. “protecting green spaces”. A bit tedious isn’t it. If only someone could explain to the politicos that we can do those two things at the same time. Sigh.
In the meantime, could you spare just a couple of short minutes to talk about another old chestnut… still twinkling in the eyes of beholders everywhere, iiiiiitttttt’s….. beauty.
To recap:
I wrote about a problem with beauty’s rise to prominence in national planning policy here. In a nutshell, my fear is that not even trying to explain what beauty means, then refusing schemes because they don’t chime with our current conception of what’s beautiful leaves us making decisions based on misguided, unexamined and often subconscious prejudice.
The next year, I explained here why enshrining beauty into the heart of our national policy hadn’t worked. As I said, for the all the fanfare which accompanied its insertion into national policy, in two high profile appeals the concept of “beauty” made precisely zilcho difference. Which, you may’ve thought, is a decent argument for not having included it as a policy criterion in the first place.
Far from rolling back on beauty, the Government’s consulted on pressing ahead with yet more useless references to it in national policy, including that strategic policies should “ensure outcomes support beauty". Riiiiight. I mean. Does anyone have the faintest idea what that actually means?
Well, beauty’s back in the news. In recent weeks, we’ve had a raft of national headlines along the lines of “Gove blocks 'generic suburban' Berkeley housing scheme over design issues” or “Builders lambast Michael Gove after he blocks plan for 'generic' homes in Kent”. Refused for being “generic”. Ouch. What must’ve happened there? Has the merciless beauty agenda claimed its first scalp?
Before I answer that question (the answer is no), a couple of caveats:
The developer in this case - the Berkeley Group - has indicated that it intends to challenge the decision in court. Who knows where that may end up. So watch this space.
And full disclosure: albeit I act and have acted for the Berkeley Group on a number of schemes, this ain’t one of them. So I have no horse in this race.
So, if you’re sitting comfortably, buckle up and join me on a trip into the heart of the Weald…
Cranbrook is a lovely little town in Kent, on the edge of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the leafy borough of Tunbridge Wells. Now, Tunbridge Wells may be gorgeous. But it has a problem. The vast majority of the borough is washed over by the AONB designation, by the Metropolitan Green Belt, or both.
So identifying areas for growth in the Borough isn’t easy. The Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy is well over a decade old now, and predated the first version of the NPPF. But the times they are a’changing, and the Borough is (slowwwwwly) bringing forward a new local plan. It’s been consulting on that new plan for 6 years already. And one of the proposed residential allocations in said plan is a scheme of around 164-168 new homes on the edge of Cranbrook. In fact, a site just about here:
And this was the spot where Berkeley Homes - flush with hapless optimism - decided to chance their arm with a planning application for 165 new homes. What did the scheme look like, you ask? It must’ve been pretty “generic” right? Well, it looked like this:
I mean, come on. I know beauty’s in the eye of the yada yada yada. But come on. The wildflower meadows. The Kentish charm. The colourful range of house-types with a smattering of local vernacular features, some nice deep gardens and lots of landscaping. I mean… could be worse, right? Right? But what do I know.
Anyway, enough pretty pictures: long story short, the Council likes this scheme. No, not like. They love it. They think it’s a “rare scheme delivering a package of exceptional benefits” on a sustainably located site supported by the vast suite of evidence prepared for the emerging local plan. Officers recommended the application for approval. Members agreed, and resolved to grant planning permission.
What could possibly go wrong?
Enter stage left: politics. The scheme got called in by Michael Gove before the Council could grant permission. Why, you ask? Well, because Natural England asked for it be called in. And why did they ask? Because - apparently - they were concerned that not enough weight is being given to protected landscapes in decision-making. A curious complaint when the NPPF gives no less than “great weight” to “to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues”.
The unfortunate Berkeley scheme appears to have found its way onto Natural England’s radar after a vociferous objection - and indeed a formal complaint against the Council - from the local director of the High Weald AONB Unit. Who, both the Council and Berkeley Homes pointed out, appeared to have a conflict of interest (so they alleged) as she only lived down the road from the site, and only showed up to object at inquiries for sites near her house. Argh. NB the allegations of a conflict of interest were not accepted. Fun and games.
Anyway, right or wrong, Michael Gove called in this reasonably modest-sized housing scheme on a site proposed for allocation in a local plan with the firm support of the local authority in an area which is not meeting its minimum targets for housing delivery. Cue a full-blown planning inquiry in late 2021 at which said director of the AONB Unit claimed that the scheme was… here we go… “a generic residential housing estate”. There’s that word again. Berkeley Homes - who instructed a very experienced urban design consultant for the inquiry - responded that the AONB Unit’s criticism was made without any analysis, methodology or indeed relevant expertise (the AONB unit director is a landscape ecologist rather than landscape architect or urban designer). But that’s the great thing about “beauty”. It’s a game anyone can play.
The Inspector came out strongly in the scheme’s favour. He found the package of benefits was exceptional, and outweighed only limited harm to the AONB.
That report was produced in April 2022.
We then wait… get this… over a year from that report (and over 3 years since the application was made 😬) for the final word from the Secretary of State. Here it is. Permission refused. And here’s the strange bit - it’s not refused on the basis of design. Gove didn’t love the design. He found that it “does not reflect the expectations of the High Weald Housing Design Guide, being of a generic suburban nature which does not reproduce the constituent elements of local settlements”. On whether that’s a fair point or not, have a look at this:
Know what that is? No, it’s not a visualisation of the Berkeley scheme. Close though - it’s an exemplar development from the “High Weald Housing Design Guide”. If you’re struggling to work out what was so awful about the Berkeley scheme compared to the precedents in this guide, well… keep wondering. Because the Secretary of State doesn’t tell us.
Anyway, this is the point: in the end, the Secretary of State refused the scheme. But he did not refuse this scheme on design grounds. No. He found that the design was a “neutral” factor in the planning balance, and refused the scheme for other reasons, in particular that given what he thought was only a limited extent of local housing need, benefits associated with housing delivery weren’t enough to outweigh the high policy tests associated with any harm to the AONB. Again, Gove’s decision is subject to a legal challenge, so we’ll see how it all turns out.
But here are the takeaways:
All the national news stories suggesting this is a case which turned on design… they’re all wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
This was not a case which turned on the quality of the design one way or the other.
The case throws up lots of questions - not least the way that call-in decisions can whip the rug out from local decision-making, and the inordinate delay that process can bring to decisions even for reasonably small schemes. It also shines a spotlight onto that frustrating position where an Inspector sits through weeks of evidence from experts and local people, takes further weeks to write up a comprehensive report, and then the Secretary of State sits on that report, then ends up disagreeing for reasons which… ahem... could be clearer. It shows us the peril of giving too much status to a subjective, unevidenced approach to design which lacks any semblance of analytical rigour… aka “beauty”. But to call this - as the nation’s press did - a refusal on the basis of “generic” design misses the point entirely.
Last word to Tunbridge Wells councillor - and previous holder of the Housing and Planning portfolio - Hugo Pound:
“The Inspector was pretty damned positive about it […] [The Borough] was under pressure, both from government housing targets and from its own demographics. The 25-49-year-old population is going down. Young people cannot afford to stay here, and they cannot afford to move here.”
Ah well. “Beauty”, eh?
Enjoy the sunshine, #planoraks. Things are looking up. I have just finished watching my beloved Sheffield Wednesday pull off their greatest come-back in decades. We’re off to Wembley. Cross fingers for us, friends. We need all the help we can get. And through it all, be you a Wednesday or even a United fan (boo, hiss), do what you can to tune out the noise, look past the headlines and - most of all - #keeponplanning.
