exceptional quality in the countryside...paragraph 79 ... made, analysing the defining issues that...

Exceptional Quality in the Countryside: Does the interpretation of Paragraph 79 of the NPPF during the planning process reflect the aim of the policy in helping to raise the standard of design more generally in rural areas? March Architecture with Collaborative Practice Research (ARB/ RIBA pt2)

K14AFF – Architectural Research Study

Name: David Symons Student ID: 434129

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 14

What is paragraph 79? ...................................................................................................................... 14

PPG 07 ........................................................................................................................................... 14

PPS7 .............................................................................................................................................. 15

Paragraph 55 ................................................................................................................................. 15

Paragraph 79 ................................................................................................................................. 16

Studio Bark’s 2018 Study .................................................................................................................. 17

Planning guidance ............................................................................................................................. 18

Design and access statements ...................................................................................................... 19

Local plans ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Design review ................................................................................................................................ 19

Planning committee ...................................................................................................................... 19

Research Aims ................................................................................................................................... 20

.............................................................................................................................................................. 21

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 22

Planning application case studies ..................................................................................................... 22

South Norfolk ................................................................................................................................ 23

Interviews .......................................................................................................................................... 23

The Study .............................................................................................................................................. 26

Planning application case studies ..................................................................................................... 26

Question 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Question 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Question 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Question 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Question 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 31

South Norfolk ................................................................................................................................ 33

Interviews .......................................................................................................................................... 38

Question 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Question 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Question 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 40

Question 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Question 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 46

David Symons Student ID: 4341296

March Architecture with Collaborative Practice Research (ARB/ RIBA pt2) K14AFF – Architectural Research Study

Page | 3

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 48

Table of figures ................................................................................................................................. 50

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 52

Appendix A- Frequency data ............................................................................................................. 52

Appendix B – Political data ............................................................................................................... 53

Abstract

Abstract Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework is a unique piece of legislation that provides exceptional circumstances for permitting isolated dwellings within the countryside. The policy assesses a project against a set of tests to ensure an exceptional quality design. The interpretation of the policy can be seen to rely heavily on subjective criterion, meaning there is the opportunity for the application of varying definitions of what constitutes “exceptional” or “innovative” to create conflicts and contradictions from place to place. The success or failure of any planning application is affected by a multitude of factors relating to the materials submitted and existing site circumstances of any project, however final decisions can be influenced by any of the major stakeholders, in particular architects, planning officers and district councillors. This report will begin with a review into the history of the policy and literature surrounding its use. Following this a series of question will be formed regarding the success of the policy in meeting its aim to be answered through analysis of a sample of previously refused and approved paragraph 79 planning applications supported by the opinions of key stakeholders to be interviewed.

“The proposal for an earth sheltered, Fibonacci series dwelling with passive solar design techniques is also considered to be exemplar, innovative and unique within the District”

– Delegated Approval Report, Fenland District Council

Figure 1 - Thorn Hall, Swann Edwards Architecture, Fenland

“With regard to the dwelling, earth sheltered houses that incorporate energy efficiency measures are not, in my opinion, especially innovative, nor is the design of such exceptional quality as to justify the granting of planning permission in this case.”

– Appeal Dismissal Report, Planning Inspectorate

Figure 2 - Denby Lane, Cadvis3d Architectural Design Services, Kirklees

“Indeed, all that will be seen from Gunnerby Road is the barn aspect of the development which retains the scale and mass of a typical barn…The design and appearance of the building is moderns and exceptional clearly taking its cue from the site and surroundings and will assimilate into its setting.”

– Delegated Approval Report, NE Lincolnshire District Council

Figure 3 - Gunnerby Road, ID Architecture, NE Lincolnshire

“Furthermore, whilst the agricultural appearance of a rural barn may be acceptable in the context of serving a functional purpose in the countryside, that is not synonymous with a building of exceptional quality or truly outstanding or innovative design.”

– Appeal Dismissal Report, Planning Inspectorate

Figure 4 - The Lodge, Andrew Ligocki, Newcastle Under Lyme

“While the Design Panel still has reservations about the justification for the building's unusual curved shape, they agree that the scheme's sustainability credentials make this a potentially innovative / ground breaking proposal. From my perspective, the building's organic shape is an elegant form and its single storey / part sunken form / part sedum roof can be commended for helping to reduce its visual impact upon the surrounds.”

– Delegated Approval Report, Mid Sussex District Council

Figure 5 - Sleepy Hollow, DD Architects, Mid Sussex District Council

“The applicant has also highlighted that the scheme has been developed working with the design review panel…the materials used, the design concept and the renewable technology proposed to be used, are not new or very special and that there were other examples of buildings in the country where such dwellings have been constructed.”

– Delegated Refusal Report, Leeds City Council

Figure 6 - Blackmoor Lane, Shaw and Jagger Architects, Leeds City Council

Introduction



Page | 14

Introduction This research study aims to gain an understanding of the paragraph 79 planning policy and its application in order to analyse the ways in which it is interpreted by architects and decision makers. The opening images show a series of planning applications that attempted to use the paragraph 79 policy in order to gain approval for an exceptional dwelling within an isolated setting. Half of the applications were approved, while the other half were refused, in each case with a very similar reason stated for reaching each decision. Anecdotally, these are the kinds of contradictions that make this policy interesting to study in the fact that different conclusions can be drawn in different areas relating to the same justification. Beginning by looking at the history of the development of the policy, this study will hope to establish the context of its goal in regulating development. Subsequently reviewing a recent study into the policy use, alongside a look at the guidance provided to decision makers. This initial literature review will set up the questions to be answered by an in depth look at a sample of case studies and interviews to gauge professional opinions on the issues raised. The study will review a sample of 36 planning applications, from local authority areas with high recorded levels of refusals or approvals when using the policy. The study will look at the many factors that could contribute to the decisions that were made, analysing the defining issues that can answer the questions asked. Following the review of planning applications, the resulting data will be set in the context of a series of interviews with professionals working with the policy in order to establish opinions on its use. The conclusion of the study will bring together all of its individual parts in order establish whether or not the use of the policy is doing everything it can to achieve its goal of raising the standards of design more generally in rural areas.

What is paragraph 79? The idea of a clause within national planning policy to allow the development of exceptional quality homes in the countryside was conceived of by the then member of parliament; John Gummer in 1997.

1 Paragraph 79 appears to be less of a focus for the RTPI now, as will be described in a later interview with their Head of Policy.

PPG 07 The now Lord Deben describes in this original policy guidance ‘the tradition of the country house’ that he states has ‘done so much to enhance the English Countryside’ (PPG 07, 1997).

Figure 7 - Chequers, part of the English Country House tradition that Gummer intended to continue. Image: brittanica.com

In a recent article on the issue for the Planning Resource, David Dewar discusses the opposition that the policy initially faced from some members of the public, as well as the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)1 (Dewar, 2017). He goes on to describe the attempts of the Labour government to omit the clause in 2000, however after a campaign led by the RIBA the updated planning policy included a new version of the statement, replacing the references to the country house with new guidance (Dewar, 2017).

Planning Policy Guidance 7, the origin of Paragraph 79: “3.21 ...An isolated new house in the countryside may also exceptionally be justified if it is clearly of the highest quality, is truly outstanding in terms of its architecture and landscape design and would significantly enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings. Proposals for such development would need to demonstrate that proper account had been taken of the defining characteristics of the local area, including local or regional building traditions and materials. This means that each generation would have the opportunity to add to the tradition of the Country House which has done so much to enhance the English countryside. Sensitive infilling of small gaps within small groups of houses or minor extensions to



Page | 15

groups may also be acceptable though much would depend on the character of the surroundings and the number of such groups in the area.” - PPG 07: The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (ODPM), 1997

Each iteration of the exceptional countryside dwelling policy exists within the context of a policy that lists the kinds of dwellings that would normally be permitted int he open countryside dwelling, including rural worker dwellings. The specific aspect of each policy regarding outstanding design applies when a design does not fit into one of those permitted circumstances. The original PPG 07 policy references outstanding quality ‘in terms of its architecture and landscape design’ (ODPM, 1997). The mention of landscape design is then omitted in the later version of the clause in PPS 7.

PPS7 The Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) document was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in 2004 to replace Lord Deben’s Planning Policy Guidance 7. The statement discusses the circumstances under which an isolated dwelling may be permitted in the countryside, other than to replace an existing dwelling or to meet the needs of a rural worker (PPS7, 2004). The policy describes the ‘exceptional quality and innovat(ion)’ needed in order to gain approval for an isolated dwelling in the countryside (PPS7, 2004). PPS7 continues the theme of Lord Deben’s original guidance, in promoting quality architecture that raises standards and improves the immediate setting of the design.

The precursor to Paragraph 55; “Principle 11: Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its

immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area.” -Planning Policy Statement 7, Sustainable Development in Rural Areas – Office of the Deputy Prime Ministers, 2004

This version of the policy introduces the term ‘ground-breaking’ and describes a design that reflects the ‘highest standards in contemporary architecture’ (ODPM, 2004). The first new term calls for a pioneering use of new materials and construction methods, whilst the second term replaces the country house references with a more modern view on quality architecture.

Figure 8 - Crossway, the first PassivHaus in the UK, created by Hawkes Architecture under PPS7. Image: hawkesarchitecture.co.uk

Paragraph 55 Paragraph 55 was created with the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by MP Greg Clark in 2012. The creation of this document marked the next major change in the realisation of a country house clause following the publication of PPS7 in 2004.

Paragraph 55, as of 2012; 55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: -the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or



Page | 16

-where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or -where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or -the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should: – be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; – reflect the highest standards in architecture; – significantly enhance its immediate setting; and – be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. -National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 55 – Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012

Paragraph 55 continues the inclusion of tests in the policy relating to enhancing its setting and being ‘sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area’ (NPPF, 2012) as started by the original PPG 07 policy. Paragraph 55 builds on the ideas of exceptional design quality and innovation by replacing the key word in the previous policy; ‘And’ with ‘Or’. The ‘and’ previously sitting between the words outstanding and ground-breaking. Whilst the minor changes to wording, may seem insignificant, some believe that the latest version of the policy means that architectural innovation is no longer totally required (Merrick, 2015).

Figure 9 - A new tradition, Mundham House by Robert Adam Architects under paragraph 55. Image: adamarchitecture.com

Paragraph 79 The latest Revision of the NPPF was published on 24th of July 2018. In the six years since paragraph

Figure 10 - Deer House by Guy Holloway Architects under paragraph 79. Image: guyholloway.co.uk

55 was published, the wording of the policy has been condensed but remains mostly unchanged. However, the reference to the promotion of sustainable development in rural areas, has been omitted.

Paragraph 79, as of July 2018; 79. Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply: a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting; d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; or e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it: - is truly outstanding or innovative, 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. -National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 79 – Secretary of State for Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, July 2018



Page | 17

All versions of the paragraph 79 Policy regard the judgement of isolated2 design in the countryside3 against a strong and specific criterion for ensuring exceptional quality or innovation and a regard to the context of an area. The policy creates an exception to the established rule of avoiding building within the countryside through the use of outstanding architecture, the policy therefore relies heavily on the judgment of a local planning authority to establish whether or not a design meets these high standards.

Studio Bark’s 2018 Study Studio Bark4 is an architectural practice based in London that have carried out five successful paragraph 79 planning applications. The practice has experience in the field of Paragraph 79 from their previous applications, and offer insights online regarding their ‘soft, flexible approach’ relating to collaboration, a consideration of location and narrative (Studio Bark, 2018). Interestingly the practice also describes articles on paragraph 79 that state ‘clients may need to be willing to spend up to £100,000 on gaining planning permission’ however they believe paragraph 79 success can be gained ‘for a substantially lower figure’ (Studio Bark, 2018). Following the changes to planning policy this year, Studio Bark carried out extensive research on Paragraph 79 planning applications in the UK. Their study involved writing to all local planning authorities in the UK to gauge use of the paragraph 79 Policy (Studio Bark, 2018).

The resulting data the studio received is useful sample of Paragraph 79 projects that gives an idea of the overall use and success of the policy. The studio has also mapped this data in order to show any geographical trends to the use of the policy in the local authorities that responded to them. The geographical data compiled by Studio Bark has been invaluable to this research project in acting as

2 A 2018 high court case argued the definition of the term ‘isolated’ in relation to a paragraph 55 application following differing interpretations by the Local Authority and Planning Inspectorate. The judge concluded to advise against the ‘over-interpretation of Policy’ in order to avoid the ‘distort(ion) of its true meaning’ (Lindblom, 2018). 3 The open countryside is defined as any area outside of a designated settlement boundary, within a local authority. The 2018 Braintree Case confirmed this definition (Goodall, 2018).

a starting point for finding past paragraph 79 projects to look at in more detail.

Figure 11 - Studio Bark's paragraph 79 data mapping tool. Image: studiobark.co.uk

Studio Bark’s research data, while not offering definitive conclusions, can help to set the scene for this study.

Figure 12 - Of the 327 local planning authorities in the UK, 69.7% responded to the researchers. Source: Studio Bark Data

4 Studio Bark describes itself online as ‘Environmentally focused’ and seeking to ‘push the ecological credentials of a design’ (Studio Bark, 2018). When discussing paragraph 79, the practice states ‘[they] are pleased that is exists to protect the countryside yet also offer creative possibility for the very best architecture can offer’.



Page | 18

Figure 13 - Of those 226 local authorities, just 23% reported to have dealt with a paragraph 79 application, with the rest either not having dealt with an application, containing little or no rural land, or being unable to provide information. Source: Studio Bark Data

Without a 100% response rate, and totally up to date data, it is impossible to draw a definitive conclusion on the uptake of the policy, however Studio Bark’s results do seem to show that whilst geographically the use of Paragraph 79 is widespread, the majority of local authorities do not make use of it.

Figure 14 - In addition to giving a sense of the use of the paragraph 79 Policy, Studio Bark’s data helps to show the resulting success rate of the applications. Their data shows that 52 % of the applications in responding local authorities have been approved. Source: Studio Bark Data

This success rate of the paragraph 79 applications recorded by Studio Bark is much lower figure than the recently released ONS Data for the total residential planning applications in England. Between April and June this year, 75% of all residential applications were granted permission. Again, the study cannot be seen as being conclusive, however Studio Bark’s sample does seem to show that there is a much lower than average success rate for paragraph 79 applications, perhaps understandable due to the specific criteria that need to be met.

Studio Bark have drawn some of their own conclusions regarding the data they have found, and they give a sense of the factors that they believe contribute to success in a paragraph 79 application. Studio Bark’s conclusions are paraphrased as follows; •Sustainability of location often is cited as a reason for refusal, in spite of the nature of isolated dwellings being inherently unsustainably located. •There is difference in opinion regarding the use of paragraph 79 in Greenbelts, although it has happened. •The ability to be innovative through the use of sustainable technologies is becoming increasingly more difficult with standards constantly improving, however the use of passive principles seems to be common. •Design reviews are often effective in aiding a positive outcome. •Conflict can occur between the goals of both improving design standards and reducing impact visually. •Partially burying homes can be seen as a successful approach. •Consideration of the landscape through detailed plans is a key trend across successful schemes. •Proposals that differ drastically from local architectural styles, in terms of design and materiality can be well received by Local Authorities. Studio Bark (2018)

Planning guidance The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) describes the role of a town planner as including:

“designing new towns or villages improving communities and the environment writing and explaining regulations and rules protecting buildings that are of historical and architectural importance ensuring that suitable land becomes available for development and supporting business and jobs”

rtpi.org.uk



Page | 19

Within this description, there is no mention of the consideration of the quality of an individual architectural design. Design is clearly not the main area of expertise for a local authority planning officer. In order to assist local authorities in making their decisions Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been published at various intervals since the creation of the original NPPF in 2012. The PPG breaks down into a series of sections helping to provide context and clarification of policies outlined in the NPPF. In relation to design, the guidance provides 42 paragraphs of information, published in 2014. The guidance describes ‘the importance of good design’ and the fact that it should respond ‘in a practical and creative way to both the function and identity of a place’ (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2014). The second point in particular resonates with the sensitivity required of Paragraph 79 for ‘the defining characteristics’ (NPPF, 2018) of the local area. The guidance also echoes Paragraph 79 in the way it describes the fact that Local Authorities must ‘give great weight to outstanding or innovative designs’ (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2014). Whilst the opening paragraphs of the PPG published in 2014 simply mirror the language of Paragraph 79 itself in establishing the importance of quality design and innovation, the latter paragraphs describe specific tools that decision makes have to help achieve these goals, as well as advice on who has the ability to make judgements about good design.

Design and access statements A second tool described by the National Planning Policy Guidance is the design and access statement. According to the guidance these documents are reports that ‘provide a framework for applications’ and explain ‘how the proposed development is a suitable response to the site’ (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2014).

Design and access statements are only specifically required for major developments or development within a conservation area, heritage site or for listed building consent. However, with their inclusion in the National Planning Policy Guidance as an ‘established way in which good design can be achieved’ (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2014) their value is clear in relation to assisting a paragraph 79 application.

Local plans Another of the specific tools that the guidance describes, and that is relevant when looking at all planning policy is the creation of local or neighbourhood plans. The NPPF requires each local authority to create a local plan with policies specific to the local area, these policies can then be read alongside national policies in order to reach any planning decision. Specific guidance was published by the national government in 2016, and later updated in 2018 to aid the creation of local plans that it states, ‘should be tailored to the needs of each area’ (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2018). The use of local plans is important when considering the interpretation of Paragraph 79 by Local Authorities because they will play a big part in decision making, and due to the specificity to each area could lead to regional variation.

Design review Design reviews are specifically talked about with the Planning Practice Guidance as ‘a tried and tested method of promoting good design’ (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2014). The guidance describes the ways in which a local authority can create their own internal design review panel or outsource the process to an external group (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2014). While not specifically required for any planning application, with design being a key factor of the paragraph 79 policy the design review panel is a tool that could be used by planners in their decision making.

Planning committee In some cases, planning decisions will be made by a committee of district councillors. These councillors will have access to the same public policy guidance as a planning officer but will have less training in the application of that policy.

Figure 15 - Planning practice guidance available to all online. Image: gov.uk



Page | 20

Research Aims Following the review into the history of the paragraph 79 policy in the context of its supporting planning guidance and Studio Bark’s recent study, a series of five possible questions5 arises.

This research study will seek to answer the following questions:

1. How often are all of the four policy tests met?

Since 2012 the policy has asked for any project to pass all of four specific tests in order to be approved;

– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; – reflect the highest standards in architecture; – significantly enhance its immediate setting; and – be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

In the context of the policy today, it will be interesting to see the use of these specific tests in approved or refused applications, in relation to professional opinions on their importance.

2. What is the importance of landscape design in the context of paragraph 79?

The evolution of the wording of the paragraph 79 policy included an earlier use of the term “architecture and landscape design” (PPG07, 1997) therefore in the context of a policy that still requires a design to “significantly enhance its setting” (NPPF, 2018) how does landscape design effect how applications are decided today?

3. How does the interpretation of the term ‘innovation’ effect the use of paragraph 79?

5 A possible sixth question could relate to the use of the policy in landscape designations that can also apply within the countryside such as; green belts, National Parks, AONBs, the

Another aspect of the evolving wording of the paragraph 79 policy includes the changing of the term “Ground-breaking.” (PPS07, 2004) to “innovative” (NPPF, 2012) and there is clearly some anecdotal contradiction in the consideration of certain architectural features by planning officers and inspectors. This leads to the question of importance of the definition of this term in the use of the policy today.

4. What is the economic viability of this route to planning?

When introducing the first PPG07, John Gummer referenced “the tradition of the English country house” (PPG07, 1997). An English country house is clearly not the average family dwelling and is not something attainable for everyone. In the context of the policy today, how does affordability factor in to the trends of its use.

5. Who is/should be deciding if a project meets the tests of paragraph 79?

Paragraph 79 projects can be decided; under delegated powers by a planning officer, at a planning committee, or at a planning appeal. Design review panels can also contribute advice that may alter the results of an application. In the context of what could be said to be a design-led policy, who is best trained to judge a project against the specific tests of the policy?

This study aims to use analysis, backed up by the opinions of professionals in order to answer the five main questions described here in order to assess the success of the paragraph 79 policy and any possible need for adjustments to its wording or associated guidance.

South Downs or the Norfolk Broads. Although addressed by Studio Bark in their study, this issue will be touched on in discussions with professionals.

Methodology



Page | 22

Methodology Planning application case studies This study will analyse a sample of 36 past paragraph 79 (formerly paragraph 55) planning applications in order to answer the five questions it poses. The sample will be drawn from the database of successful and unsuccessful paragraph 79 applications in the UK compiled by Studio Bark. I am aware that the Studio Bark database is not completely up to date in that many applications are missing, and others will be constantly altered as planning applications run their course. The study is mindful not to draw any definitive conclusions from the Studio Bark data itself. The study will use the data as a starting point to carry out a detailed analysis of a sample of 36 planning applications from seven chosen local authorities. Using this sample applications, it will be even more difficult to reliably assess national trends, however I will be able to effectively analyse the specific local authorities and applications in enough detail to suggest possible answers to the questions of the study, when backed up by the opinions of professionals. The study will use information available online within each local planning authority website to record a number of factors relating to the paragraph 79 approvals and refusals.


In order to address this question, I will analyse the delegated, committee or appeal reports of each application within the sample, utilising the tool over the page in order to discover in which cases any or all of the policy tests have been met. The following two questions will also be addressed in part by the use of the test chart.


The third test of the policy, relating to significantly enhancing the immediate setting will be a good measure of the consideration of landscape within a scheme. To address this question the study will look the individual planning applications of the sample

6 Application frequency graphs are included in Appendix A. The New Forest and Dartmoor National parks have four and two refusals recorded respectively, although their designation, and

in relation to the third test and will note when a landscape architect was used in putting together the scheme.


To begin to answer the second question, this study will look at the application of the first test of the policy and the specific architectural methods cited by decision makers as meeting their definition of innovative or truly outstanding.

Figure 16 - Using this chart system, I will analyse the delegated, committee or appeal refusal and approval reports of my sample of 36 applications in order to look at the use of tests in more detail.

The local authorities included within this study have been chosen according to the frequency of paragraph 79 applications recorded within the Studio Bark database.6 Local Authorities included in study:

South Norfolk District Council 10 Refusals 7 Approvals Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council 2 Refusals Leeds City Council 2 Refusals Kirklees Council 2 Refusals Mid Sussex District Council 4 Approvals North East Lincolnshire District Council 4 Approvals Fenland District Council 4 Approvals 1Refusal

unique circumstances mean they will not be included within the main sample.



Page | 23

4. What is the economic viability of this

route to planning?

Neither the construction costs of a project, or the design fees associated with a project are readily available online regarding paragraph 79 applications. However, the floor area of a scheme is a good measure of the cost of a building with costs calculated in relation to a price per square meter. To help to answer this question, the study will look at the floor area of each approved or refused scheme with the sample in comparison to the UK average.


To look at the circumstances of this question the study will look at the actual decision level of each application within the study, either delegated, committee or following an appeal in order to see the different approaches of local authorities in determining these applications.

South Norfolk As well as being part of the overall study sample, South Norfolk is the area with the highest number of approvals and refusals recorded in the Studio Bark study.7 Aside from the main five questions of this research, the study has looked at the factors behind South Norfolk’s unique relationship with the Paragraph 79 policy. Looking in even more detail at the applications over time, as well as any trends in the architects or planning officers involved in the project will give an indication into the depth of factors that can contribute to the use of the paragraph 79 policy. This specific case study does not seek to be definitive in concluding on national trends but is an example of the many lines of enquiry that can be made when attempting to explain the success or failures of a particular piece of policy, such as paragraph 79 in any local authority.

Interviews Interviews were conducted with professionals with experience of working with the paragraph 79 policy in practice or more generally. A planning officer,

7 The seventeen recorded applications here is a high enough number to not easily be skewed by the lack of completeness to Studio Bark’s study, warranting further research.

conservation officer, district councillor, architects and the head of policy at the Royal Town Planning Institute were interviewed. The interviews were arranged following speculative calls to various local authority offices as well as following existing university connections with specific architects.

The interviews were semi-structured allowing the participants to go into more detail regarding their own areas of interest. The framework of question topics below was used as a starting point for each conversation. Interviews with planning officers were mostly related to specific projects, as these were the areas where they had the most knowledge. The interviews ranged in lengths and depth depending on the level of experience of the policy. The purpose of these interviews is to interrogate the conclusions that this study draws from the sample application data in order to more wholly answer the five main questions asked. In addition to this the opinions will show whether or not professionals believe the policy is working in its current state, to achieve its aims.



Page | 24

Interview Framework

Topic 1: Paragraph 79 (Formerly Paragraph 55) •What are your experiences of this part of national policy? •What is your opinion on the spread of use of the policy? •What is your opinion on the success rate of this route to planning? •What is your opinion on the affordability of this route to planning? Topic 2: Exceptional Design and Innovation •What are your views on the specific criteria of the paragraph 79 policy? •What are your views on defining Innovation and exceptional design in relation to the policy? (Image Prompts) •What are your views on the differences in opinion when it comes to assessing a paragraph 79 design? •What are you views on the guidance that planners and architects receive in reaching a decision about paragraph 79 Application? Topic 3: Interpretation •Do you see any differences in the reasons for approval/ refusal of projects between the areas/ applications you work within? •What are your thoughts about the possible differences in interpretation of policy between areas? •Do you believe the political makeup of the local authority council that you work within has any impact on the planning system? Topic 4: Conclusions/ Solutions •How do you feel the paragraph 79 policy is working, as intended by the NPPF? •What possible ways do you think variation in interpretations of the policy could be avoided, if necessary? •How do you feel about the guidance provided for using this policy? Do you think this could be improved?

The Study



Page | 26

The Study Planning application case studies Question 1 How often are all of the four policy tests met?

All four tests of the paragraph 79 policy must be met in order to gain approval, according to its wording. Planning decisions can be made at either under delegated powers, at committee or at the planning appeal level. At each of these stages a report will be produced, appraising the project and justifying the reasons for the officer, committee or planning inspector’s decision. This study has analysed all of the reports related to each of the 36 sampled planning applications at a delegated level and their actual decision level in order to assess the use of the policy tests. The study used the structure of the table below in order to record within each report whether or not the author stated any of the criteria as:

Being met and justified Being met, with no justification Being met, deferring to the opinion of a design review panel Not being mentioned Not being met

If a criterion is met and justified, the author will have described the test of the policy and the aspects of the application that they believe mean the project has used to meet that criteria. If a criterion is met without justification, the author has repeated the wording of the policy test but provided no specific aspect of the design or process

that has led to the test being met. If a criterion is met, deferring to the opinion of a design review panel, the author has stated the policy test and the fact that the design review panel has considered that a feature of the application has met the test, and that they agree with that opinion. No mention of a criteria obviously relates to the omission of any reference to the specific policy test. If a criterion is not met, the author of the report will state the aspect of the design that means the project does not meet the test, in the form of their own opinion, or the opinion of a consultee such as a landscape or conservation officer.

Figure 17 - Crooked Bank, Peter Humphrey Associate, Fenland District Council. Approved at committee, with three of the tests not mentioned.

The results of the policy test exercise are shown on the next page and display the trends that appeared within the study sample of 36 applications. The results show that within the sample the first two tests of the policy are most likely to be met, with the second two the most likely not to be met. As well as looking at the likelihood of an individual test to be met, the exercise also shows that despite the wording of the policy, not every approval case was determined to have all of the tests and be justified.

Figure 18 - Table used to record usage of the policy tests

Figure 19 - Land Adjacent to Moorlands, David Futter Associates, South Norfolk. Refused at appeal with two tests met and two tests not met.

In some delegated approval cases one of more of the tests are not mentioned at all. In some committee cases, one or all of the policy tests have not been met, meaning an overturned planning officer decision.

Figure 20 - Land South of Georgian House, North East Lincolnshire. Approved at committee meeting all of the policy tests.

Mid Sussex is shown to have a record of deferring decisions to design review, whilst North East Lincolnshire in every case, states that each test is met and justified at committee.

It is apparent that within this sample of 36 applications, there is not a consistent approach in the application of the four policy tests of paragraph 79. The reasons for this may become clear following further analysis of the application data, and in the opinions of professionals. However, even as a feature of a small sample, it is interesting that across these local authorities there is such a difference in the application of the policy criteria.

Figure 21 - The first test is considered to be met more often than any other within my sample and was never not mentioned in a decision report.

Figure 22 - The second policy test was the most likely in the sample to not be mentioned at all but is still more likely to be met than the final two tests.

Figure 23 - The third policy test was more likely to be met than the final test, within the sample, however, was also not met on a number of occasions within a decision report.

Figure 24 - The final policy test was most likely not to be met within the sample.



Page | 28

Question 2 What is the importance of landscape design in the context of paragraph 79?

Within this sample study, the analysis of the use of the policy tests helps to establish the importance of landscape design in the context of paragraph 79. The third policy test, relating to significantly enhancing the immediate setting represents a clear consideration of the landscape. Within this sample, this test was one of the least likely to be met within the decision report of an application.

Figure 25 - The third policy test is one of the least likely within this sample to have been met.

In addition to the policy tests, the inclusion of a landscape architect within the design process could be a clear indication of the importance of landscape design in the context of this policy.

Figure 26 - Within the sample study of 36 applications, a landscape architect was included in the design process less than 20% of the time.

Within this sample it is clear that the use of a landscape architect8 in the design process is something that does not occur often, perhaps leading to the higher likelihood of the third policy test not to be met. This statistic is 8 In contrast to this sample; Hawkes Architecture are a practice that work extensively in the area of paragraph 79, with sixteen

consistent between both the refused and approved applications within the sample however, meaning that the lack of a landscape architect does not appear to significantly affect the chances of gaining approval.

Figure 27 - Landscape plan, Land at Weald House, Mid Sussex. Scheme approved at committee. Image: Huskisson Brown Associates

Question 3 How does the interpretation of the term ‘innovation’ effect the use of paragraph 79?

This question can be partially addressed in the context of this sample by looking at the likelihood of the first policy test to be met. This test is more likely to be met than any of the others, meaning that the application designs were generally considered to be either ‘truly outstanding’ or ‘innovative’.

However, as illustrated at the introduction of this study, there are often contradictions in the consideration of particular construction methods or sustainable techniques as being innovative.

To further explore the interpretations of innovation within this sample of data, the study has utilised

approved schemes, all of which were arrived at with the help of a landscape architect.



Page | 29

South Norfolk as a sub-sample of 17 applications in order to look in detail at which innovative construction or sustainability methods were proposed for the approved and refused schemes. To do so meant analysing each of the supporting design and access statements for the projects before inputting the data into a piece of word cloud generating software that recorded the frequency of words as they appear.

Figure 28 – Word-cloud of innovative measures proposed within approved South Norfolk schemes. Image: worditout.com

Figure 29 – Word-cloud of innovative measures proposed within refused South Norfolk schemes. Image: worditout.com

The two word-clouds are strikingly similar, with the largest, and therefore most frequent words appearing the same in both images. Materials, Solar and Source appear to be frequently referenced in both approval and refusal schemes, most likely relating to the use of natural or local materials, ground source heat pumps and passive solar technology.

The similarities in the innovative approaches proposed, within this one local authority area shows that it is difficult to distinguish between construction methods that are ultimately refused or approved. This data, alongside the

9 The wealth of an area is often associated in people’s minds with the political leaning of that area. Appendix B includes a breakdown of the political structure of each local authority

results regarding the meeting of the ‘innovative’ policy test show that while the consideration of any chosen technology as meeting the criteria is down to the opinion of the deciding officer, the test must be set in the context of the whole policy in order to gain approval.

Figure 30 - The ten most frequent words across both refused and approved applications.

Question 4 What is the economic viability of this route to planning?

The economic viability of a project relates to the money available in any area9 as well as specific factors including value of land, build cost, client budget and design fees. While it is directly difficult to analyse some of these factors in relation to a sample of planning applications, it is possible to indirectly infer some conclusions relating to data that is available.

Figure 31 - A 1696sqm paragraph 79 scheme. Mundham House, Francis Terry, 2017, South Norfolk.

In the context of this sample of planning applications, a build cost can be approximated from the floor area of a proposed design. The floor area for each of the planning applications involved in this

included within the sample study. A trend appears for approval areas to be predominantly of a conservative majority.



Page | 30

study are not all available online, however within a subsample of twenty-two applications the floor area was available either within the application documents or via dimensioned plans.

The average footprint of a paragraph 79 application within this study is over six times larger than the average UK house size.

Figure 32 - Sample study average internal footprint VS. Average UK House Size (LABC Warranty, 2018)

Using this information, alongside national average data for the cost per square meter10 of property in the UK an average property cost for the projects involved in this study can be estimated.

Figure 33 - Sample study estimated average project cost (Hawkes Architecture, 2018) VS. Average UK House Price (UK House Price Index, 2018)

The data found shows that paragraph 79 projects appear to be more expensive that the average home. However, this could be expected when considering the wording of a policy that requires ‘exceptional quality’.

Figure 34 - Average David Wilson 2-3-bedroom 64sqm terraced home. Image: dwh.co.uk

10 According to 2017 ONS data the UK average price per square meter was £2,395 (ons.gov.uk)



Page | 31

Question 5 Who is/should be deciding if a project meets the tests of paragraph 79?

To address this question the study has looked at the actual decision level of each of the sample planning applications. The majority of all applications are decided at committee. The majority of refusals are made under delegated powers, with the majority of approvals decided at committee. Planning officers generally defer to a planning committee when an application is thought to not be in line with policy or has particular public interest.

Breaking down the use of delegated or committee decisions to look at each area shows a variety of approaches between local authorities. The charts to the right show that there are no distinct differences between the approval and refusal areas, other than a slightly larger likelihood for positive decisions to be made at committee as outlined earlier. North East Lincolnshire stands out as an area that has received all of its paragraph 79 approvals at committee. Looking at the committee minutes in each of these cases, the applications have received unanimous support from the councillors. Mid Sussex is an exception to the perceived trend of taking approval applications to committee with all of its approvals decided under delegated powers. The cause would appear to be the existence of an in-house design review panel in Mid Sussex, upon which the planning officers in this area can base their decisions regarding paragraph 79 applications. South Norfolk is an area with a high level of refusals, with applications decided mostly at committee. Unlike Mid Sussex, South Norfolk does not have its own design review panel, and none of its 17 applications used the design review process. The process of analysing each of these Local Authorities shows that while some trends appear across different areas, there seems to be no one approach to the decision-making process regarding paragraph 79 projects. In a lot of ways this should be the case, with the decision to take a project to committee made on an individual project basis.

Figure 35 - Actual decision levels within each of the sample local authorities.



Page | 32

Planning Appeals

Planning decisions can also be made at the appeal level, by the planning inspectorate. In relation to this route to a decision, using the Studio Bark recorded applications can give a better sense of the trends here than this small sample study.

To provide context to this point 63% of Studio Bark’s recorded paragraph 79 refusals went to appeal, with 22% being successful (studio bark data) in comparison to 38% of all planning application refusals going to appeal nationally with 28.5% of those being successful (planning inspectorate and ONS data).

The comparably tiny number of paragraph 79 applications when compared to national statistics may be a reason for the differences. Nothing in my own data and discussions, or studio bark’s data can definitively conclude on the matter without further research, although the success rate at appeal in each case, seems to be similar.



Page | 33

South Norfolk An in-depth look at an area with a high level of recorded paragraph 79 applications.

Success rate

Looking at the applications rates in South Norfolk as a whole, the local authority has a lower approval rate than the Studio Bark UK rate for Paragraph 79 applications.

Figure 36 - South Norfolk paragraph 79 refusal and approval rate. Source: Studio Bark data

Figure 37 - Overall Studio Bark recorded applications refusal and approval rate. Source: Studio Bark Data

One possible reason for a better success rate with the Paragraph 79 Policy has been explained by Colin Mars, in the Architect’s Journal. Mars describes the 25 approved schemes recorded within Studio Bark’s data that followed a Design Review, giving what he states as “a much a higher approval rate of 78 percent” (2018). In South Norfolk, none of its seventeen applications went to a Design Review Panel. This immediately could be a contributing factor to the success of applications in South Norfolk. However more

information is needed to explain the unique frequency of applications in the area. Application features

As well as the policy circumstances behind an application, looking in more detail at the specific features of the design itself, and the quality of materials submitted with an application it is possible to find other patterns in refusals and approvals. In the case of South Norfolk, within the small sample of seventeen applications, the refused applications are on average smaller, with less floors and bedrooms that the applications that are approved. This is strange in comparison to the typical thinking behind approving new build dwellings, with many national and local policies limiting the size and scale of schemes, meaning smaller designs are usually better received. However, the data could be skewed by the existence of one, very large, traditional country house application. The scale of Paragraph 79 projects could relate to the viability of designing and constructing a house to the level of quality required by the policy.

In contrast to this, the approved schemes all have a larger amount of submitted application materials in the form of Design and Access Statements, CGI visuals and drawings. This is logical in the sense that the more information a planning officer has, the easier it should be for them to make a positive decision on a scheme.

Figure 38 - South Norfolk application feature table. Source: Studio Bark Data and South Norfolk District Council



Page | 34

Figure 39 -South Norfolk application trends over time. Source: Studio Bark data and South Norfolk District Council.

The graph above paints a detailed picture of application trends in South Norfolk over time. Mapping the overall rate of applications, approvals and refusals over time in relation to key events, such as the introduction of new local and national policy, suggests certain trends. A small spike in applications occurred in 2012 with the introduction of the NPPF, with fewer applications in the years either side of this. A significant spike in applications occurred in 2014, with no correlation to any specific policy event. Finally following 2015 and the introduction of South Norfolk’s New Development Management policy application rates have significantly dropped. The Development Management Policy adopted in 2015, contains the following passage:

“Rural housing should generally be provided within development boundaries and exceptionally on local needs housing sites provided under Policy DM 3.2. In accordance with national and Local Plan policies, new isolated dwellings in the countryside will only be supported in special circumstances.” -South Norfolk Local Plan, Development Management Policies Document, October 2015

Specific mention of the circumstances within which the Paragraph 79 policy applies, perhaps shows a greater awareness of the policy within the district as of 2015 that could be the reason for the decreased number of applications. Before this document there was no mention of the National Policy within South Norfolk’s local planning guidance. That being said, the circumstances for any planning application being submitted could equally relate to the will of the architect or client behind it, and the possible lack of demand for projects in this area.



Page | 35

The charts to the right go beyond the ability of any previous data in order to explain the unique frequency of Paragraph 79 planning applications in South Norfolk. In South Norfolk, over half of all of the Paragraph 79 applications were made by a single architect, For each paragraph 79 planning application in South Norfolk, a senior design officer is consulted to provide a report and recommendation for the delegated officer or planning committee. The majority of these recommend refusal, with just 27% recommending approval. Each of the positive recommendations related to a Studio Urbanblu application and was written by the same senior design officer. This example shows that a deeper look into any local authority can display a number of recordable features that could contribute to the number of paragraph 79 applications in that area. However, in the case of South Norfolk, the most likely reason for the exceptionally high level of applications is down to the work of a single architect. With the small numbers of paragraph 79 applications that there still are in the UK, it is possible for such minor anomalies to contribute to major disparities in the data.

Figure 40 - Single architect's share of all South Norfolk paragraph 79 applications. Source: South Norfolk District Council

Figure 41 - Design officer recommendations relating to paragraph 79 applications in South Norfolk. Source: South Norfolk District Council.

Interviews



Page | 38

Interviews To gauge professional opinions on the use of the policy and its success in achieving the goals it sets out, I have spoken to a number of leading architects working in the residential field, as well as planning officers with experience of using the policy. Some interviews went into more detail than others, due to the time constraints of working professionals. The key points of each interview are summarised below.

Each participant raised interesting points relating to their personal experiences of the policy and their beliefs regarding its proper interpretation. There are often differences in opinions regarding the use of the policy between planning officers and architects. Complete summaries of the interviews are included as an appendix to this document.

Question 1 How often are all of the four policy tests met?

Following the analysis of the data sample included within this study, it has been found that there are major differences in the way that the four policy tests of paragraph 79 are applied. As an issue to take to professionals working in the field, without leading them to any specific conclusion, this question can be phrased to ask if individuals have experienced any differences in their use of this policy in different local authority areas.

The answers to this line of interview questioning will help to understand why it might be that the policy tests are applied differently. The following quotes from the interview sessions relate to this issue.

“Areas have different agendas. Ashford wants to attract CEO’s and industry leaders to live in the countryside and commute to London. They are therefore promoting big, one-off houses, through the general political persuasion. “ – Alexander Richards, Guy Holloway Architects

“Some authorities are crying out for good design. You are pushing at an open door. They are excited and up for these kinds of projects…. in others the planners have still never said yes to a scheme. “ – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

Figure 42 - Deer House by Guy Holloway Architects under paragraph 79 in Kent. Image: guyholloway.co.uk

Architects are in a unique position when compared to planning officers or committee members when considering their use of paragraph 79 in the fact that they will work across multiple areas, rather than for a single local authority. The architects involved in this study generally agree that the use of the policy varies in each of the areas that they have worked within. This can be in the form of visible differences in the quality of applications approved or the receptiveness of the local authority to the idea of the policy.

“…from looking at any given selection of approved Paragraph 79 projects, and the difference in the amount / detail of supporting information submitted for each project, that not all of the projects are to the same high standard.” – Nick Newman, Studio Bark



Page | 39

Figure 43 - Periscope House by Studio Bark under paragraph 55. Image: studiobark.co.uk

The opinion below served to help to explain the appearance of some local authorities that are happy to defer the assessment of the policy tests to a design review.

“One council we have worked in have consented a paragraph 79 scheme in the past and generally if a scheme has the backing of their Design Review Panel then they will recommend it for approval.” – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

It is clear from these opinions that professionals are aware of the variation in the application of the tests of the policy. In relation to the quality of permitted schemes this seems to be a negative trend, however in some cases it may mean that projects are more easily welcomed than others, to the benefit of the area and the client.

Question 2 What is the importance of landscape design in the context of paragraph 79?

Architects again agree on the importance of landscape design to the use of paragraph 79, with two of them stating landscape architects as fundamental to their design process. In the context of this study’s sample it is interesting how few made use of a landscape architect, when some appear to believe this is crucial. The interviewed architects have a good success

11 Guy Holloway architects have recently gained approval for a scheme under paragraph 79, whilst Hawkes Architecture have gained approval for sixteen applications.

rate11 compared to the study sample, possibly in part due to their use of landscape consultants.

“Fundamental to the practice is the consideration of the site context, in particular the Deer House explains its historic landscape…. having a good landscape architect on board is fundamental to pursuing this route to planning.”

– Alexander Richards, Guy Holloway Architects

Figure 44 - Flight Farm by Hawkes Architecture under paragraph 55 within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Image: hawkesarchitecture.co.uk

“Landscape architects are involved in all of our projects from day one, with the first principles that a scheme is built upon being put together in collaboration with them. “ - Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

One architect believed that the data relating to the study sample showing that the final two tests of the policy were least likely to be met, may not be due to the quality of the scheme but because of the potential of the site to be improved in the first place. This would mean that sites with proposed schemes, not meeting the final two policy tests would have never been able to gain approval because of their existing qualities.



Page | 40

‘‘The existing site consisted of a large area of concrete hardstanding as well as low quality existing outbuildings, therefore there was room for it to be enhanced… The use of the policy is something that we see fail when it is attempted to be applied in the wrong location.” – Oliver Scott, Newark and Sherwood Council

Figure 45 -Ken’s Yard by Allan Joyce Architects, approved under paragraph 55 in Newark and Sherwood. Image: allanjoycearchitects.co.uk

A conservation officer involved in approving a paragraph 55 scheme in Nottinghamshire echoes this point in his reference to an existing former timber yard as having potential to be improved.

“…relating to the character of the area, which in this case, was within Greenbelt and consisted of open fields. “

– Nick Hirst, Kirklees District Council

Planning officers definitely have the local landscape in mind when making their decision, in particular when considering projects within the green belt.

“So much focus on design as the main issue of the policy puts emphasis on the architecture whereas actually you are always dealing with the landscape by definition in a countryside setting.” – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

Richard Hawkes sums up the issue well when thinking about perceptions of the paragraph 79 policy as a whole. Within this study’s sample there is definitely a focus within the decision reports on the first, design led policy of the test, rather than the more landscape oriented final tests.

Question 3 How does the interpretation of the term ‘innovation’ effect the use of paragraph 79?

Regarding the interpretation of the terms of the policy, in particular ‘innovation’ and ‘exceptional’ there is not total consensus amongst architects or planning officers. Some believe that with each application the judgement against the policy tests becomes more difficult, whilst others believe that the tests do not have to be though about this way.

‘‘each time a Paragraph 79 application is approved, the bar for what is exceptional goes up… each project should be judged in relation to the site and the quality of the design, based on its own merit.’’ – Alexander Richards, Guy Holloway Architects

“The role of innovation is misunderstood as having to have never been done before, rather than being a new technology that is being proved to work well.” – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

Figure 46 - Halfpenny House by Hawkes Architecture, approved under paragraph 55 with the use of a passive solar design. Image: hawkesarchitecture.co.uk

“the design was shortlisted for an award, however as part of a list, the scheme is not unique, perhaps if it won above all others more weight could be given to its architectural merit.” – Nick Hirst, Kirklees District Council

In relation to the subjectivity of the policy tests there is also some disagreement in the correct approach. Some believe that design is subjective, and definitions of quality can be open ended, suggesting the use of design reviews as a way to effectively judge this quality in a fair way.



Page | 41

“there is a wide range of possible definitions as to what constitutes the ‘best quality’…design is a subjective matter”

– Nick Newman, Studio Bark

However, others have looked at the policy tests in a subjective way, attempting to apply them without the influence of individual opinions.

“We attempted to take a straightforward approach to applying the criteria, avoiding the subjectivity relating to what constitutes what is innovative or outstanding design.” – Oliver Scott, Newark and Sherwood District Council “The tests of the policy can be looked at objectively. We set out to be objective on each of these issues and communicate this to the planners. “ – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

It is clear that there are different interpretations amongst professionals when considering the wording of paragraph 79. Although there is definitely agreement in the need for the highest quality design, it not agreed as to what the definition of this is.

Question 4 What is the economic viability of this route to planning?

Planning officers and architects alike are aware of the higher costs of paragraph 79 projects, in relation to the design process and the buildings themselves.

“Paragraph 79 dwelling(s) do not necessarily have to be of a high budget, but the cost of the process to get there will always be higher… larger value projects are often more justified” – Alexander Richards, Guy Holloway Architects

“One DRP charged our client around £4500 per session, and more than one session was required. We think that more government funding should be given to

such organisations to continue doing the good work that they do, but at a lower overall cost to the end users.”


Design reviews are seen as an expensive part of the process that could benefit from additional funding.

“Viability of paragraph 79 is definitely related to the money available in the area. Showing a clear trend throughout the UK correlating with wealthier areas in the South and South East. “ – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

The thoughts of an architect working across the UK and a planning officer working in the midlands correlate in the perceived trends of viability following patterns of wealth in the UK.

“The policy may work for wealthy landowners in the countryside to build their own isolated mansions, but we feel that it can … provide a way for people to build innovative, sustainable dwellings and live in an alternative way. We also understand the issue of viability when considering the high cost of things like the PassivHaus system.” – Oliver Scott, Newark and Sherwood District Council

Question 5 Who is/should be deciding if a project meets the tests of paragraph 79?

As shown in the sample application study, there is not a consistent approach between some areas as to the route to deciding a paragraph 79 application. This is a trend that is repeated in the opinions of architects and planning officers, however with some architects believing that committee decisions occur more often than not.

“Generally, applications will go to committee, because they are unusual and strategic project.”

– Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

“I have seen a number of outstanding isolated applications that we have voted to



Page | 42

approve because of their high-quality designs.”

– Cllr. Steven Harness, North East Lincolnshire District Council

Figure 47 - Moorhouse by Jonathan Hendry Architects, approved under paragraph 55 in North East Lincolnshire. Image: jonathanhendryarchitects.com

There is however disagreement when it comes to who people believe should be making the decisions regarding paragraph 79 applications. They go on to state that planning committee members have even less design training than planning officers, meaning they may be worse equipped to make these decisions.

“Paragraph 55s are not ultimately a decision that should be made by a committee. We go to DRP because planning officers aren’t comfortable judging design, so how should a committee be able to?” – Alexander Richards, Guy Holloway Architects

‘‘These are projects that the committee probably should see, we as a practice don’t have a problem with that…[however] committees often only look at a project on face value, through the images presented, rather than looking at the whole proposal in the round.” – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

Some architects believe that planning officers are lacking in design training, meaning that design review panels should have more say regarding these projects.

“With regard to Design Review Panels, we are generally supportive of their input. They provide rigour and critique, and help to keep the bar high, but they appear not to be a standard requirement for Paragraph 55/79.”


“The policy judges quality of architecture, Planning Officers are not generally trained to do this. Going to design review can help to assess a design as exceptional as judged by our peers.”


Mid Sussex is a local authority that follows this view in approving all its paragraph 79 schemes on the advice of its own design review panel. However, some question the rigour of the design review in the context of the other policy tests.

“Unless panel members understand the context of the policy and other policies that are relevant, a planning officer must be mindful that the advice will only be limited to just the design of the scheme at face value. “ – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

Figure 48 - Bigbury Hollow by Hawkes Architecture under PPS7. Image: hawkesarchtiecture.co.uk

A planning officer with experience of a positive paragraph 55 decision made at committee, believes in their ability to make these decisions.

“Planning committee members have also received training regarding contemporary building techniques and are open to modern and innovative design solutions.” – Oliver Scott, Newark and Sherwood District Council



Page | 43

North East Lincolnshire is a local authority included within this study’s sample and is the area that most consistently applied all four of the paragraph 79 policy tests when arriving at its decisions. All these decisions were made at committee.

“I have seen a number of outstanding isolated applications that we have voted to approve because of their high-quality designs. We rarely vote against the recommendation of the planning officer, however as councillors first we always consider the needs of residents as a priority. The NELC Planning department are excellent, the officers are excellent, and I have the greatest respect for them.” – Cllr. Steven Harness, North East Lincolnshire District Council

While he did not believe paragraph 79 was a current mainstream issue, the head of policy at the Royal Town Planning Institute offered an interesting insight into the ability of planners to focus on one policy area.

“As non-architects we have expertise relating to wider strategic policies and policies that are of mainstream concern. Paragraph 79 appears to be a very specific, and niche area, however …we are interested in learning as much as we can about its use.”

– Richard Blyth, Royal Town Planning Institute

The interviews within this study offer a cross section of opinion relating to the use of the paragraph 79 policy in different areas of the UK. The opinions of the interviewees help to explain the trends that appear from the sample data as well as offering insight into areas of the policy that they believe could be improved.

Planning Appeals

The architects interviewed all agree on the importance of the planning inspectorate in reaching definitive decisions on paragraph 79 applications. There is a deep respect for the work of the inspectorate and their rigorous approach to assessing applications.

“Arguably decisions are down to the tastes of the planning inspectorate who have the final say.”


“The best mechanism we have seen for regulating the output of paragraph 79 applications, is that of the Appeal process. The planning inspectorate reviews many such cases and are helpful in testing / benchmarking the decisions of one authority against another.”


“In our experience the Inspectorate understand the policy and how to apply it. They respect the process and rigour put into an application, relating to the examination of the site.” – Richard Hawkes, Hawkes Architecture

The planning appeals system offers a rigorous check against national and local policy through inspectors appointed by the secretary of state. – Richard Blyth, Royal Town Planning Institute

The planning inspectorate declined to participate in this study.

Conclusion



Page | 46

Conclusion My motivation for creating this piece of research stems from an interest in the existence of a policy that is designed to promote the kinds of exceptional buildings that an architecture student dreams of one day creating. paragraph 79 has developed over time to judge projects against a strict set of tests in order to ensure designs that raise the standards of architecture in rural areas. However, from my earliest enquiries into the policy it seems that there were differences in the way that the policy is used in different areas of the country, with local authorities, the planning inspectorate and architects appearing to have differing views of the definitions of the terms of the policy. The existing literature surrounding the paragraph 79 policy led to the formation of five key questions that the study has aimed to answer through the use of a sample study and interviews with professionals.




4. What is the economic viability of this route to planning?


In answering these questions, five areas open to improvement arguably become clear in relation to paragraph 79, with suggestions for these improvements arrived at with the help of the interviewees of this study12.

1. A more consistently rigorous and objective approach to the application of the four policy tests could ensure the highest quality designs are arrived at during the planning application process, across all areas, avoiding the need for the support of subjective opinions.

12 Richard Hawkes suggested the changes to the policy similar to those discussed in points 2 and 3 in a response to a recent public consultation on the NPPF. He also suggested changing the word

2. The re-introduction of landscape design in to the wording of the policy could emphasise the importance of this aspect of the process, helping to address point one and perhaps meaning unsuitable sites are more likely to be avoided.

3. Clarification of the definition of ‘innovative’ as separate from ‘ground-breaking’ would reward high quality design solutions without requiring unnecessarily pioneering technologies.

4. Nothing about the policy itself demands a high budget to be implemented, and while reducing the costs of design reviews may reduce the barrier to entry for some, bold thinking will be needed from architects, clients and developers to go against the established trends of the use of the policy.

5. It is not the job of any of the decision makers involved in the determination of paragraph 79 applications to be an expert in a single piece of policy, so there may always be a knowledge gap within the process. However, if the tests of the policy are followed as written and assessed objectively there is no reason why a planning officer, committee member or planning inspector could not make a reliable decision not influenced by subjective opinions.

Paragraph 79 is a piece of planning policy that may not be of mainstream concern, however, if implemented correctly it has the potential to raise the standards of rural design in the UK to the benefit of everybody. The principles the policy stands on are applicable to all areas of design and could arguably be applied in other forms of rural development to the same effect, and benefit.

‘or’ for ‘and’ within the first test of the policy. Nick Newman suggested in additional funding for design review panels.

With thanks to all of the interview participants for their valuable contributions.



Page | 48

Bibliography Campaign to Protect Rural England (2018). The State of the Green Belt. England: Campaign to Protect Rural England Country Life. (2003). End of Gummer’s Law? Available: https://www.countrylife.co.uk/articles/end-of-gummers-law-54327. Last accessed 28th Oct 2018 Dartmoor National Park Authority. (2019). Planning Search. Available: http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/living-and-working/planning/search-for-an-application. Last accessed 13th January 2019

Dewar, D. (2017). Exceptional properties: What impact has the so-called ‘Gummer’s Law’ had on decision makers? Available: https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1436469/exceptional-properties-impact-so-called-gummers-law-decision-makers. Last accessed 28th Oct 2018 Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (1997). Planning Policy Guidance 7: The Countryside. England: Crown Copyright Fenland District Council. (2019). Planning Search. Available: https://www.fenland.gov.uk/publicaccess/. Last accessed 13th January 2019.

Goodall, M. (2018). Isolated houses in the countryside. Available: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/isolated-houses-in-countryside.html. Last accessed 28th Oct 2018 Guy Holloway Architects. (2019). News. Available: https://www.guyhollaway.co.uk/. Last accessed 13th January 2019

Hawkes Architecture. (2018). Para 79. Available: http://www.hawkesarchitecture.co.uk/para-79. Last accessed 28th Oct 2018 HM Land Registry. (2018). UK House Price Index for April 2018. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-

price-index-for-april-2018. Last accessed 1st Nov 2018 House of Lords. (2010). Lord Deben. Available: https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-deben/4154. Last accessed 28th Oct 2018 Justice Lang [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin). (2018). Braintree BC v SSCLG. Judgement Approved by the court [2018] EWCA Cv 610 Kirklees District Council. (2019). Planning Search. Available: http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-applications/search-for-planning-applications/default.aspx. Last accessed 13th January 2019

LABC Warranty. (2018). Are Britain’s Houses Getting Smaller? (New Data). Available: https://www.labcwarranty.co.uk/blog/are-britain-s-houses-getting-smaller-new-data/. Last accessed 1st Nov 2018 Leeds District Council. (2019). Planning Search. Available: https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/. Last accessed 13th January 2019.

Mid Sussex District Council. (2019). Planning Search. Available: https://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-applications/. Last accessed 13th January 2019.

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. England: Crown Copyright. p22 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework Guidance. England: Crown Copyright New Forest National Park Authority. (2019). Planning Search. Available: https://publicaccess.newforestnpa.gov.uk/online-applications/. Last accessed 13th January 2019

Newark and Sherwood District Council. (2019). Planning Search. Available: https://publicaccess.newark-



Page | 49

sherwooddc.gov.uk/online-applications/. Last accessed 13th January 2019

Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council. (2019). Planning Search. Available: https://publicaccess.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/online-applications/. Last accessed 13th January 2019

North East Lincolnshire Council. (2019). Planning Search. Available: http://planninganddevelopment.nelincs.gov.uk/online-applications/. Last accessed 13th January 2019.

Royal Town Planning Institute. (2019). What is town planning. Available: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/education-and-careers/become-a-planner/. Last accessed 13th January 2019

South Norfolk Council. (2019). Planning Search. Available: https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/. Last accessed 13th January 2019.

Studio Bark. (2018). Paragraph 79. Available: http://studiobark.co.uk/paragraph-79-paragraph-55/. Last accessed 13th January 2019.



Page | 50

Table of figures Figure 1 - Thorn Hall, Swann Edwards Architecture, Fenland ..... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2 - Denby Lane, Cadvis3d Architectural Design Services, Kirklees ................................. 8 Figure 3 - Gunnerby Road, ID Architecture, NE Lincolnshire ..................................................... 9 Figure 4 - The Lodge, Andrew Ligocki, Newcastle Under Lyme ................................. 10 Figure 5 - Sleepy Hollow, DD Architects, Mid Sussex District Council .................................. 11 Figure 6 - Blackmoor Lane, Shaw and Jagger Architects, Leeds City Council ....................... 12 Figure 7 - Chequers, part of the English Country House tradition that Gummer intended to continue. Image: brittanica.com ...................................................................... 14 Figure 8 - Crossway, the first PassivHaus in the UK, created by Hawkes Architecture under PPS7. Image: hawkesarchitecture.co.uk ....... 15 Figure 9 - A new tradition, Mundham House by Robert Adam Architects under paragraph 55. Image: adamarchitecture.com ................ 16 Figure 10 - Deer House by Guy Holloway Architects under paragraph 79. Image: guyholloway.co.uk ........................................ 16 Figure 11 - Studio Bark's paragraph 79 data mapping tool. Image: studiobark.co.uk ........ 17 Figure 12 - Of the 327 local planning authorities in the UK, 69.7% responded to the researchers. Source: Studio Bark Data ......... 17 Figure 13 - Of those 226 local authorities, just 23% reported to have dealt with a paragraph 79 application, with the rest either not having dealt with an application, containing little or no rural land, or being unable to provide information. Source: Studio Bark Data ......... 18 Figure 14 - In addition to giving a sense of the use of the paragraph 79 Policy, Studio Bark’s data helps to show the resulting success rate of the applications. Their data shows that 52 % of the applications in responding local authorities have been approved. Source: Studio Bark Data ........................................... 18 Figure 15 - Planning practice guidance available to all online. Image: gov.uk ............ 19

Figure 16 - Using this chart system, I will analyse the delegated, committee or appeal refusal and approval reports of my sample of 36 applications in order to look at the use of tests in more detail. ...................................... 22 Figure 17 - Crooked Bank, Peter Humphrey Associate, Fenland District Council. Approved at committee, with three of the tests not mentioned. ................................................... 26 Figure 18 - Table used to record usage of the policy tests .................................................... 26 Figure 19 - Land Adjacent to Moorlands, David Futter Associates, South Norfolk. Refused at appeal with two tests met and two tests not met. ............................................................... 27 Figure 20 - Land South of Georgian House, North East Lincolnshire. Approved at committee meeting all of the policy tests. ... 27 Figure 21 - The first test is considered to be met more often than any other within my sample and was never not mentioned in a decision report. ............................................. 27 Figure 22 - The second policy test was the most likely in the sample to not be mentioned at all but is still more likely to be met than the final two tests. .............................................. 27 Figure 23 - The third policy test was more likely to be met than the final test, within the sample, however, was also not met on a number of occasions within a decision report. ...................................................................... 27 Figure 24 - The final policy test was most likely not to be met within the sample. ................. 27 Figure 25 - The third policy test is one of the least likely within this sample to have been met. ............................................................... 28 Figure 26 - Within the sample study of 36 applications, a landscape architect was included in the design process less than 20% of the time. ................................................... 28 Figure 27 - Landscape plan, Land at Weald House, Mid Sussex. Scheme approved at committee. Image: Huskisson Brown Associates ..................................................... 28 Figure 28 – Word-cloud of innovative measures proposed within approved South Norfolk schemes. Image: worditout.com ..... 29

https://uniofnottm-my.sharepoint.com/personal/layds8_nottingham_ac_uk/Documents/David%20Symons%20-%20Collaborative%20Practice%20Research%20.docx#_Toc535778908














Page | 51

Figure 29 – Word-cloud of innovative measures proposed within refused South Norfolk schemes. Image: worditout.com ..... 29 Figure 30 - The ten most frequent words across both refused and approved applications. .................................................. 29 Figure 31 - A 1696sqm paragraph 79 scheme. Mundham House, Francis Terry, 2017, South Norfolk. ......................................................... 29 Figure 32 - Sample study average internal footprint VS. Average UK House Size (LABC Warranty, 2018) ............................................ 30 Figure 33 - Sample study estimated average project cost (Hawkes Architecture, 2018) VS. Average UK House Price (UK House Price Index, 2018) .................................................. 30 Figure 34 - Average David Wilson 2-3-bedroom 64sqm terraced home. Image: dwh.co.uk ...................................................... 30 Figure 35 - Actual decision levels within each of the sample local authorities. .................... 31 Figure 36 - South Norfolk paragraph 79 refusal and approval rate. Source: Studio Bark data 33 Figure 37 - Overall Studio Bark recorded applications refusal and approval rate. Source: Studio Bark Data ........................................... 33 Figure 38 - South Norfolk application feature table. Source: Studio Bark Data and South Norfolk District Council ................................. 33 Figure 39 -South Norfolk application trends over time. Source: Studio Bark data and South Norfolk District Council. ................................ 34 Figure 40 - Single architect's share of all South Norfolk paragraph 79 applications. Source: South Norfolk District Council ....................... 35 Figure 41 - Design officer recommendations relating to paragraph 79 applications in South Norfolk. Source: South Norfolk District Council. ......................................................... 35 Figure 42 - Deer House by Guy Holloway Architects under paragraph 79 in Kent. Image: guyholloway.co.uk ........................................ 38 Figure 43 - Periscope House by Studio Bark under paragraph 55. Image: studiobark.co.uk ...................................................................... 39 Figure 44 - Flight Farm by Hawkes Architecture under paragraph 55 within an

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Image: hawkesarchitecture.co.uk ............................. 39 Figure 45 -Ken’s Yard by Allan Joyce Architects, approved under paragraph 55 in Newark and Sherwood. Image: allanjoycearchitects.co.uk ............................ 40 Figure 46 - Halfpenny House by Hawkes Architecture, approved under paragraph 55 with the use of a passive solar design. Image: hawkesarchitecture.co.uk ............................. 40 Figure 47 - Moorhouse by Jonathan Hendry Architects, approved under paragraph 55 in North East Lincolnshire. Image: jonathanhendryarchitects.com .................... 42 Figure 48 - Bigbury Hollow by Hawkes Architecture under PPS7. Image: hawkesarchtiecture.co.uk ............................. 42 Figure 49 - South Norfolk Sample Data, specific application breakdown. Source: Studio Bark Data and South Norfolk District Council .......................................................... 52 Figure 50 - Sample data approval areas. Source: Studio Bark Data .............................. 52 Figure 51 - Sample data refusal areas. Source: Studio Bark Data ........................................... 52 Figure 52 - Sample data refusal areas, political breakdown of elected councillors. Source: Local authority websites ............................... 53 Figure 53 - Sample data approval areas, political breakdown of elected councillors. Source: Local Authority Websites ................. 53 Figure 54 - National parks unique political breakdown with appointees from Secretary of State. Source: National Park authority websites ........................................................ 54



Page | 52

Appendices Appendix A- Frequency data Sample application frequencies

Figure 49 - South Norfolk Sample Data, specific application breakdown. Source: Studio Bark Data and South Norfolk District Council

Figure 50 - Sample data approval areas. Source: Studio Bark Data

Figure 51 - Sample data refusal areas. Source: Studio Bark Data



Page | 53

Appendix B – Political data Local authority political breakdowns

Figure 52 - Sample data refusal areas, political breakdown of elected councillors. Source: Local authority websites

Figure 53 - Sample data approval areas, political breakdown of elected councillors. Source: Local Authority Websites



Page | 54

Figure 54 - National parks unique political breakdown with appointees from Secretary of State. Source: National Park authority websites