Back to the future? Rethinking terraced housing

PDP-terraced housing

Political parties of all stripes are vowing to ‘tackle the housing crisis’ and make Britain carbon neutral in the coming decades. This could radically change how we build and live in our homes in the future. Or perhaps not. Jon Millhouse, Director at Planning & Design Practice Ltd, believes that terraced housing could be the key to meeting this challenge.

Good ideas have a habit of coming back around. At the turn of the twentieth century, the most popular form of house building was terraced housing. As a concept, it was simple, yet effective. It didn’t require much land take, yet each household was usually allocated a decent amount of internal accommodation, and a garden. There was typically a shop on the corner of every street, or a pub; schools and places of work usually within walking distance. People travelled further afield by bicycle or tram.

Later in the twentieth century, as cars became the dominant mode of transport and the aspiration for most families, our built environment changed too. Rows of terraced houses were swept away to accommodate new roads. Those terraced streets which did survive became car-dominated. Those who could afford to often moved in the suburbs, or better still, the countryside, relying on the private motor car to serve their needs. The type of housing we began to build, and continue to build to this day, is designed around the car; low density detached housing with driveways and garages.

As we face up to the challenges of tackling climate change, and building enough houses to accommodate our population without having to pave over our treasured countryside, reverting to terraced housing once again, but in a manner fit for the twenty first century, could be a big part of the solution. Many aspects of that original urban form suit our needs today. Having only two (narrow) walls exposed to the outside world rather than four, significantly reduces heat loss. The higher densities enabled mean we can create walkable and cyclable neighbourhoods, reducing our reliance on the car. Small convenience food stores, micropubs and trams are all coming back into fashion. Fewer cars mean quieter streets, where children can play, and residents can interact, helping to address the increased problem of social isolation. It also means more exercise, which is good for our physical and mental health, particularly if supplemented with public open space in close proximity, offering opportunities for recreation, biodiversity and trees to help with carbon capture, urban cooling and flood resilience.

None of these ideas are new, none of this is rocket science. It is merely common sense. We shouldn’t assume that modern problems require a revolutionary, technological solution. Much can be learned from the past.

But neither should we assume that in re-adopting a house type of the past, we have to accept its historic limitations. Modern terraced housing can be better insulated, better lit and more spacious than its predecessors. We can generate heat and power through microgeneration, rather than coal. With such mod-cons, terraced houses can once again become the kind of property that developers want to build, and that people want to live in.

Jon is both a Chartered Town Planner and a Member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation.

He can be contacted at jon.millhouse@planningdesign.co.uk or via telephone on 01332 347371.

Image: geograph-2703969-by-Dave-Bevis
Popular terraced housing at Chester Green, Derby. Fronting a quiet road reserved for cyclists and pedestrians, and a public green space.

Modern terraced housing at Oaklands, Duffield Road, Derby.
(Planning permission obtained by Planning & Design Practice Ltd on behalf of Meadowview Homes).

Examples of an urban form designed around the motor car became the norm in the later twentieth century.

(Images: Google Maps)

RIBA announces shortlist for Inaugural Neave Brown Award for Housing

PDP_RIBA Neave Brown Awards 2019

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) announced on Thursday 25 July the shortlist for the very first Neave Brown Award for Housing, named in honour of the late Neave Brown (1929 – 2018).

Neave Brown was a socially-motivated, modernist architect, best known for designing a series of celebrated London housing estates. In 2018, he was awarded the UK’s highest honour for architecture, the Royal Gold Medal for Architecture, which is approved personally by Her Majesty The Queen.

The four housing developments in the running for the 2019 Neave Brown Award for Housing are:

Brentford Lock West Keelson Gardens, London, by Mae Architects

Thoughtful canalside development comprising six large apartment buildings, with distinctive saw-tooth roofs reflecting the site’s industrial past, linked with rows of four storey townhouses.

Eddington Lot 1, Cambridge, by WilkinsonEyre with Mole Architects

Designed for the University of Cambridge, this new residential quarter is an exemplar of integrated urban design. Incorporating a variety of housing types including generous apartments, some wrapped around a new supermarket and integrated with a new doctor’s surgery.

Goldsmith Street, Norwich, by Mikhail Riches with Cathy Hawley

Large development of 105 highly energy-efficient homes for social rent, designed to Passivhaus standards for Norwich City Council.

The Colville Estate, London, by Karakusevic Carson Architects with David Chipperfield Architects

Bold regeneration of a Hackney Council housing estate, designed and delivered in close engagement with residents, to provide 925 new homes in a neighbourhood of legible streets and open spaces.

The shortlist was selected from the 2019 RIBA Regional Awards winners by an expert panel of judges: RIBA President Ben Derbyshire; Director at Levitt Bernstein Jo McCafferty; and Professor Adrian Gale, formally of the School of Architecture at the University of Plymouth.

On the shortlist, Jonathan Jenkin, Managing Director of Planning & Design Practice Ltd said

‘It is good to see public housing and public bodies such as the University of Cambridge being recognised. All the schemes are exemplars and aim to provide high quality accommodation on difficult sites. Good quality public housing is essential if we are going to raise the quality of housing generally and meet the challenges of housing which is fit for purpose and long lasting and housing that meets the challenge of climate change’.

To be considered for the 2019 Neave Brown Award for Housing, projects needed to be a winner of a 2019 RIBA Regional Award, be a project of ten or more homes completed and occupied between 1 November 2016 and 1 February 2019 and one third of the housing needed to be affordable and should demonstrate evidence of meeting the challenge of housing affordability.

The winner of the Neave Brown Award for Housing will be announced at the RIBA Stirling Prize ceremony on Tuesday 8 October 2019.

Amber Valley Housing Update – Council decides to review 500 homes worth of ‘resolutions to grant’

PDP_Amber Valley Housing update

The Amber Valley Local Plan saga continues…

Amber Valley Borough Council had prepared a Draft Local Plan which went to Examination last summer. However the Inspector queried their intention to release a large amount of Green Belt for housing at Denby without a Green Belt review. Consequently, the Examination was paused to allow the Council to conduct a thorough assessment and come back with more housing sites, if necessary.

Following the Green Belt Review, in March of this year the Council published a consultation document stating their intention to release 14 Green Belt sites to facilitate the development of up to 2,000 new homes. Unfortunately, this decision went before the Full Council just prior to the local elections. The motion was passed by the majority Conservative administration which caused a lot of backlash from local residents who would be affected by the proposals. The Labour councillors promised no development on Green Belt land, and then went on to win the overall majority at the subsequent local council elections in May.

Following the new Labour administration coming into power, at a meeting held on the 22nd May, the Council resolved to withdraw the emerging Local Plan. Whilst difficult to estimate, Council Officers state that preparing a new Local Plan could cost in the region of £1.4 million over 5 years.

The Council were previously preparing their draft Local Plan in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 version. However the legislation was then updated in 2018 (and with further minor updates in 2019) and the guidance stipulates that plans submitted after the 24th January 2019, should be prepared in line with the new NPPF.

In accordance with this, the Council were due to release their annual housing land supply figures which run yearly from March – April. However, the new housing methodology was applied, in line with the guidance, which brought their housing requirement over a five year period from 5,561 homes required under the previous methodology, down to 2,552. This means that Amber Valley can now demonstrate a 5.42 year supply of housing land, without even allocating any new sites for housing.

It should be noted however that the new methodology has come under scrutiny from a wide-range of sectors, as it has caused a significant reduction in the overall numbers generated by the method for assessing local housing need. The implications for this is that the Government’s housing target for 300,000 homes a year to fix the housing crisis will struggle to be met.

Because Amber Valley can now demonstrate a five year housing supply, there are 7 sites in Amber Valley, totalling more than 500 homes, which have a ‘resolution to grant’ usually pending the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, which can take a few months. These sites were predominantly granted based on ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ which meant that because the Borough did not have an adequate supply of deliverable housing sites, the permission should have been granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (as stipulated in the NPPF). For these granted applications, the planning balance was weighted in favour of the grant of the permissions.

However, following the publication of their 5.42 year housing supply, the Council has chosen to revisit these ‘resolutions to grant’ as they claim there may no longer be sufficient material considerations approve the developments. These sites total over 500 potential homes, with all of them being ‘major’ developments which means they would have to have at least 30% affordable housing, which is a potential loss of 150 affordable homes, plus additional benefits which were to be secured through the S106 agreements to be lost, such as money for local school expansion.

As the new figure calculated is only just over 5 years, the Council are also opening themselves up to appeals and potentially public inquiries. These can be lengthy and expensive processes for all parties involved. The Council still has a duty to provide over the minimum set target.

Unfortunately this is a common situation unfolding now all over England, particularly in the North and in large parts of the North Midlands, where housing need figures are plummeting. However figures calculated recently using the new methodology even suggested that Cambridge needs no new housing, which is ridiculous when you consider the Government’s proposed Oxford to Cambridge growth plans. This also has the stark implication of lower housing requirements, significantly impeding the delivery of affordable housing.

This highlights the need for the Government to revise the new standard methodology. Whilst a standard methodology is welcomed (which will inevitably save both time and money for all involved), it is becoming increasingly clear that this methodology is not the right way forward if it is reducing the number of houses required (during a housing crisis) by such a significant amount.

The main issue with the new standard methodology is the household projections themselves. They are based on past trends of household formation to predict future housing needs.

However household formation is changing. People are living longer, settling down later in life and divorce rates are higher. This means that there is a smaller average household size than previously. However the increase in household formation has been restricted, because there are not enough new homes being built. The projections do also not account for the massive shortfall of homes not being built since the 1970s.

We haven’t built 300,000 homes a year since 1969, which accumulates in a shortfall of over 6 million homes. The figures are projecting forward trends based on a recent period of suppressed household formation, rather than forecasting the actual housing need.

The Government have acknowledged that there is an issue, when they consulted further on the standard methodology in October 2018, and it is hoped that there will be a revised standard methodology published in the near future, which may boost the delivery of much needed housing.

Rebecca Beardsley, Planner at Planning & Design.

NEDDC ordered to foot £300k appeal costs for ‘unreasonable behaviour’

PDP_North East Derbyshire District Council

North East Derbyshire District Council has had a very bad fortnight, losing 2 appeals on major housing developments in quick succession.

The first scheme, submitted by Rippon Homes Ltd, was for 180 dwellings on Land at Deerlands Road, Wingerworth. The Inspector concluded that there is a five year housing land supply in the District but this is not a ceiling and that the provision of general needs housing together with 40% affordable housing were very significant material considerations weighing in favour of the appeal scheme.

He found that whilst the housing land supply position does not trigger the so called ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, this is triggered by the fact that the spatial strategy and settlement boundaries are out of date. Permission should therefore be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In this case the inspector considered that the adverse impacts would not come close to outweighing the benefits. To make matters worse for the council, the Inspector ordered the council to pay the all of Rippon’s costs of around £300,000.

In the second appeal, submitted by Persimmon Homes, a scheme for 160 dwellings at Land off Mansfield Road, Winsick, Chesterfield was allowed. The Inspector found that although the proposal would conflict with Local Plan policies GS1, GS6 and H3, the weight which should be attributed to them is greatly reduced given the age of the Local Plan (adopted in 2005). The proposals would be in accordance with the most important policies to the determination of the appeal, namely policies BE1 and H12. He concluded that the appeal would accord with the development plan and the Framework as a whole and would constitute sustainable development.

For more information on the above appeals or if you have your own potential housing sites that you are looking to pursue, please get in touch.

GET IN TOUCH