Can a ‘beauty calculator’ raise standards in housing design?

As part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, Michael Gove has suggested the use of a ‘beauty calculator’ to raise standards in design. Nigel Booen, director of design at Boyer, rigorously examines what this will mean for housebuilding. 

As part of the government’s preoccupation with ‘beauty’ as a principal factor in the creation of new developments, it was hinted momentarily that the secretary of state may legislate for the use of a ‘beauty calculator’ to assess and determine planning applications. However, the prospect of a tool so precise as a calculator to measure something as esoteric and nebulous as beauty has understandably caused consternation amongst architects and designers.

So, this begs the question, is there anyway in which such a tool could work and can we entertain this idea for a brief moment?

What makes a house beautiful?

Firstly, it is important to consider what constitutes beauty in housing design. Clearly a building’s form, architecture and the materials used are relevant. Much of the recent policy on beautiful buildings, specifically the work of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, describes ‘beauty’ as being found in historic styles of architecture. In relation to the work on the Commission in 2020, the then secretary of state, Robert Jenrick, said that the planning system would place a ‘higher regard’ on quality and design and draw on ‘the idea of design codes and pattern books that built Bath, Belgravia and Bournville’.

Beauty versus functionality

Other criteria, however, is less clear-cut. If ‘beauty’ correlates with ‘good design’ then functionality must also feature. But there are circumstances in which functionality can over-ride aesthetic value – for example in providing car parking. Convenient and accessible parking is a necessary component of a well-functioning housing development. But Georgian style schemes are being upheld as the epitome of good design, and there is little opportunity in a Georgian town layout for on-plot, off-road parking and garages, unless of course one is thinking of mansions in the meadows. Form and function are both are important design considerations, but does ‘beauty’ favour the former at the expense of the latter, tilting the beauty calculator towards what is aesthetically pleasing over that which works?

Circumstantial beauty

For a calculator to provide consistency, it should be applied universally. But this immediately poses a problem in relation to housing development. Should urban schemes within a conservation area, for example, be judged more stringently than a deprived inner-city area would be – because the need for housing of any kind along with infrastructure and investment is more pressing than aesthetics? Does a warehouse necessitate being beautiful to the same extent as the regeneration of a high street? And should temporary housing be judged as rigorously as civic buildings in strategically important locations which are built to span centuries?

Paying for beauty

Perhaps even more importantly, what is the cost of ‘beauty’? An investment in good architectural consultancy and high quality materials will require savings to be made elsewhere. In some circumstances, the sums necessary score highly on a beauty calculator will means that funds are not available to be spent elsewhere – for example in providing community facilities, affordable housing or increasing biodiversity net gain. Or simply that the scheme will become unviable.

Measuring beauty

There are also questions over whether the beauty of an unbuilt scheme can be assessed with any real accuracy. The artists’ impressions and CGIs typically provided to accompany a planning application tend to focus on the more aesthetically-pleasing elements of a proposed scheme: they rarely portray the backs of buildings, the car parks and the service areas; yet in reality, the beauty of a scheme is combination of all of its features. Similarly a depiction ahead of planning permission will present the development at its best: blossom will be in flower, children will be smiling and balconies will be well tended. The reality of course is quite different – but would a beauty calculator factor that in (and should it, with no quantifiable evidence as to how the development’s future might evolve)?

This then leads to the question of who might be qualified to assess the potential level of ‘beauty’ in an unbuilt scheme. An architect might be qualified to do so; but the scheme’s own architect would be biased, as would any other (competitor) architect. A local authority planner would have the necessary objectivity, but not the necessary design training. Local authority design panels might provide the solution, design panels not longer exist routinely across all planning authorities – in reality no more than a quarter of local authorities have design panels today.

Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Perhaps the most important issue is that the potential veto of housing schemes on design grounds seems to overlook the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’: the basis that development should be allowed on the basis that it is sustainable and complies with planning law. The current NPPF suggests that all other considerations are secondary.

Conclusion

The government’s attention to design standards is admirable in principle, but its application raises many questions.

Planning is primarily objective and formed of checks and balances: if ‘beauty’ is to be raised to the top of the development agenda, then the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ drops down. Consequently, fewer much-needed homes will be built. It is unquestionable that beauty is best measured post-completion. It should take into account quality of build and craftsmanship. But the long term is also important: how well the development is taken care of as that is the measure of a truly successful development.

Images: borevina and Daniel McCullough

More features:

How SMEs can help redefine social responsibility in local communities

The progression of politics and housebuilding over the last half century