Housing estate design of the last 20yrs - why so bad?
Discussion
In egomeister's defence, knowing where he lives, the new build estates in his town aren't especially inspiring - indeed one is my most disliked scheme, so I take our new planning and development grads to see it when they start.
One thing as a (private sector) planner I notice is that the current planning landscape in terms of where the Council is with their local plan and housing delivery in general influences the quality of the developments. If an authority doesn't have/hasn't had a 5 year land supply or up to date local plan and has been swamped by 'speculative' applications, I've seen that the resulting rigour applied by officers in working through the full planning or reserved matters detail for these schemes hasn't been that great. One authority springs to mind where in the process of a pre-app meeting on a reserved matters application, the top development management planner commented to me that for the past five years (whilst their local plan was out of date and they had no 5 year land supply so were losing appeal after appeal on controversial sites) the Council had been in a mindset of 'build em high, build em cheap' sausage machine, to try and drive their delivery figures (of course if the old codgers on their planning committee had actually approved some applications, they wouldn't have been fighting and losing those expensive appeals...). They were on the back foot, officer headcount was being reduced and they were having to take on appeal officers rather than urban design officers. Now they've got a new plan in place, officers (and members) are becoming a lot hotter on RM applications and seeking some more thought to be put into them. Indeed, one scheme I worked on for a mass market house builder is one where bespoke designed bungalows are being delivered to ensure the scheme ties in with the local historic styles - this obviously impacts the scheme values and the developer nearly lost the site when bidding as another developer's bid didn't feature bungalows, but the landowner who was selling the site specifically wanted to see bungalows as he was local etc. etc. Had a scheme been put in front of the Council when they didn't have a five year supply, I'd bet my (single storey) house on there being no bungalows - oh, the Council wants bungalows and refuses the RM, see you at appeal...
I've noticed also that a case officer with good understanding of design is hard to find and he/she often will overrule the views of the Urban Design officer in favour of highways, drainage consultees when having a round table meeting about a new scheme.
Generally, Councils are most likely to care about schemes that are allocated in their own local plans and if a scheme has its own design code, then that's one to look out for as a lot more time and effort has gone into it.
One thing as a (private sector) planner I notice is that the current planning landscape in terms of where the Council is with their local plan and housing delivery in general influences the quality of the developments. If an authority doesn't have/hasn't had a 5 year land supply or up to date local plan and has been swamped by 'speculative' applications, I've seen that the resulting rigour applied by officers in working through the full planning or reserved matters detail for these schemes hasn't been that great. One authority springs to mind where in the process of a pre-app meeting on a reserved matters application, the top development management planner commented to me that for the past five years (whilst their local plan was out of date and they had no 5 year land supply so were losing appeal after appeal on controversial sites) the Council had been in a mindset of 'build em high, build em cheap' sausage machine, to try and drive their delivery figures (of course if the old codgers on their planning committee had actually approved some applications, they wouldn't have been fighting and losing those expensive appeals...). They were on the back foot, officer headcount was being reduced and they were having to take on appeal officers rather than urban design officers. Now they've got a new plan in place, officers (and members) are becoming a lot hotter on RM applications and seeking some more thought to be put into them. Indeed, one scheme I worked on for a mass market house builder is one where bespoke designed bungalows are being delivered to ensure the scheme ties in with the local historic styles - this obviously impacts the scheme values and the developer nearly lost the site when bidding as another developer's bid didn't feature bungalows, but the landowner who was selling the site specifically wanted to see bungalows as he was local etc. etc. Had a scheme been put in front of the Council when they didn't have a five year supply, I'd bet my (single storey) house on there being no bungalows - oh, the Council wants bungalows and refuses the RM, see you at appeal...
I've noticed also that a case officer with good understanding of design is hard to find and he/she often will overrule the views of the Urban Design officer in favour of highways, drainage consultees when having a round table meeting about a new scheme.
Generally, Councils are most likely to care about schemes that are allocated in their own local plans and if a scheme has its own design code, then that's one to look out for as a lot more time and effort has gone into it.
Edited by Highway Star on Friday 12th July 14:38
Highway Star said:
I've noticed also that a case officer with good understanding of design is hard to find and he/she often will overrule the views of the Urban Design officer in favour of highways, drainage consultees when having a round table meeting about a new scheme.
Yes to this. If indeed they have a UD officer.egomeister said:
From the discussion on this thread it strikes me that the real villain behind this is planning regulation.
Now see I don't buy into this. I generally have a lot of sympathy for planning officers (considerably less so for the illiterate Committee Members)Planning (as I'm sure you've picked up from the multiple threads about it on PH) is enormously complicated and takes a lot of time and money to robustly put into place.
The real villain is the lack of land supply. Yes this is controlled by the planning system, but the planning system is controlled by you and the politicians.
If more land was made available, it would make it cheaper, which would mean that house builders would have choice between reducing sales prices or creating better schemes that maintain existing prices to beat off the competition. We would have enough houses to meet demand and have a much more healthy relationship with property in this country (which goes part way to explaining why/how other countries can do housing differently).
However as a nation we are drunk on house price increases (as long as you own one) and reactionary (small c) conservatism/protectionism/nimbyism, so the thought of sacrificing free money and concreting over 'greenbelt' is not a vote winner so will never happen.
Which is a shame as it does need to happen - as a hopeless romantic I think that there are real opportunities to create and build new places to live that genuinely add to this country's built environment.
egomeister said:
blueg33 said:
egomeister said:
Equus said:
There are also builders (and architects) who will design and build you whatever you want, if your pockets are deep enough. As I said, everybody would like to be driving an Aston or a Bentley... it's no good bellyaching because you can't afford what you want.
I'm not complaining I can't afford what I want, I'm complaining that the product isn't available. The parallel would be that you have to commission someone to build you an Aston, because there are only VWs, and BMW and Toyotas being manufactured.From the discussion on this thread it strikes me that the real villain behind this is planning regulation, and the inevitable (and commercially unimaginative) response of the housebuilders to the conditions presented to them.
This has a massive impact on layout, for instance both sides of a road need to be developed (developing 1 side means you have fewer plots paying for the road), drives kept to a minimum length, housetypes that are as simple as possible, eg avoid dormers because they mean steel and steel is expensive, cul de sacs and turning heads are expensive, retaining walls are expensive so build to the contours etc
Because its location driven, unless you are at the upper end I think developers can to some extent get away with being commercially unimaginative. Developers do look at research into building technology, and there are some more imaginative design around. In effect Redrow have done with there Heritage Range what BMW did with the Mini. Took the basic shape of 1930's houses and make it fit modern times. These sell well, but only in locations where people will pay the premium for the design.
blueg33 said:
I think many people on PH live in a comfy middle class bubble (myself included). Many people in this country would love to be able to buy a house on a modern estate even if it is a box.
Agreed, in my Uni year in industry (1992) I was working for a small developer, we were building very small 1 & 2 bed flats in 2 storey mews in Aquaduct TelfordIIRC they were £29,950 and £34,950 and we had people clamouring to buy them. As layout dictated considerable WIP the Sales Director was keen to shift them - we even took cars as deposits !
According to an online calculator thats £43k today
I'm 99% sure this was one of "ours"
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/51137798...
£75k !
blueg33 said:
Developers do look at research into building technology, and there are some more imaginative design around. In effect Redrow have done with there Heritage Range what BMW did with the Mini. Took the basic shape of 1930's houses and make it fit modern times. These sell well, but only in locations where people will pay the premium for the design.
I'd never seen those Redrow Heritage houses. Some of them look very like the houses where I live. They look much nicer than the typical modern UK house, but they are a throw-back to a time in which builders were also being a bit retro...
I wonder if the Heritage homes are as well-built as my early 1930s house is? Apparently build quality was quite variable in the 30s, I suspect that good quality materials became quite scarce towards the end.
MC Bodge said:
I wonder if the Heritage homes are as well-built as my early 1930s house is? Apparently build quality was quite variable in the 30s, I suspect that good quality materials became quite scarce towards the end.
My late parents old house (that I was brought up in from early 60's thru late 80's) was built in 1939, and was very solid and well built, (but soild 9" brick walls, no cavity, no felt layer under roof tiles so loft was filthy etc) but they only got the first 6 houses in the estate road built before the war started, and they didn't came back to finish it till late 40's. By which time, the war's effect etc, meant that the house style and construction for the remaining 25 odd houses in the road was very typically post war 'utility' style and build and made the road look a little odd!egomeister said:
I'm not complaining I can't afford what I want, I'm complaining that the product isn't available. The parallel would be that you have to commission someone to build you an Aston, because there are only VWs, and BMW and Toyotas being manufactured.
From the discussion on this thread it strikes me that the real villain behind this is planning regulation, and the inevitable (and commercially unimaginative) response of the housebuilders to the conditions presented to them.
The product is available. If you've got the money, PM me and I'll design whatever your heart desires. From the discussion on this thread it strikes me that the real villain behind this is planning regulation, and the inevitable (and commercially unimaginative) response of the housebuilders to the conditions presented to them.
The analogy with cars can only be taken so far, because whilst mass housing is often built in multiples of standard designs, each one is then effectively still hand-made. There is no massive investment in tooling or type approval (there is an equivalent of the latter, but it's relatively cheap and simple).
If you want something that lies outside the norm, then you commission it yourself. Yes, it will cost you more than a developer built house, but not by the dramatic multiples that having a bespoke car built to production car standards would cost you.
ben5575 said:
We would have enough houses to meet demand
I've never quite understood when people say there is a shortage of housing? you can search any town within the UK and you will find lots of houses for sale. Genuinely I've never quite understood the term a housing shortage.I can appreciate people saying there is a shortage of affordable housing, but how can the government build affordable housing when the reality is the price of land is expensive.
V8RX7 said:
Generally it isn't, agricultural land is circa £10k an acre
If the Gov't wanted to buy fields and built homes cheaply - it could
If most farms go to the wall in the next few years then they may well be doing that. If the Gov't wanted to buy fields and built homes cheaply - it could
.... It would be a shame for parts of the UK to become completely built-up, though.
Land, they don't make it any more...
egomeister said:
this is why I used the phrase commercially unimaginative. Even at the low end of the car market you have products like the BMW Mini, or Fiat 500 or Citroen DS3 where the manufacturer invested extra effort (and presumably money) to ensure they got the product just right for there market - with the resulting commercial success. Does anyone have the mindset "I really want a Bovis for my next place?"
No, but avant really sell some premium product small houses, and flats generally are much higher spec and better lay out than houses, my sisters flat is 1300sqft, 2 massive bedrooms, huge kitchen with a island, dinning area with table for 10, lounge, snug area and 4 big cupboards, with all the spotlights., solid wood flooring integrated appmaices etc, it’s a much better product than a 4 bed Taylor wimpey house of the same size, but people seem to think they need 4 bedrooms and a drive for some reason.If I was a house builder, I would build premium upmarket houses for couples, 2 beds but massive ones with en suites and walk in wardrobes, big open plan entertaining spaces and a snug living room, I bet they would sell like hot cakes, adults only housing. bliss.
Nickbrapp said:
I bet they would sell like hot cakes.
I wouldn't bank on it, for the reason I mentioned above: you might think it's a great idea, prospective purchasers might think it's a great idea.... but unless you can persuade mortgage lenders to value them over the odds (which you won't), then it's going nowhere.Another interesting parallel with the car industry, incidentally, is that lots of housebuilders start out targeting a 'premium' image and market, but then invariably become more mainstream as they grow. Laws of supply and demand, I guess: there simply isn't enough demand at the top end of the market to sustain larger volumes.
It's slightly depressing to reflect that I produced the drawings for Persimmon's national standard house type range when they were still regarded as a 'premium' housebuilder, with IIRC just three regions plus York head office, and were still being run by their founder, Duncan Davidson. I think their total production was circa 1,500 homes per year back then (they're running at about ten times that, these days).
A lot of the negative new build cliches are found on estates with lots of cheap houses. Cheap older housing stock often has problems of its own. Buy a higher price new build, the issues are far fewer/smaller, just as if you bought a higher end old house vs a cheap one. My personal view is that there is a lot of inverted snobbery when it comes to new builds as pound for pound, they are more expensive than a similarly sized older house. Cheap, older houses are only good for rentals/social these days, first time buyers who have jobs don’t want to be living in 2 bed terraced houses, nor do they need to. A big old house always has a touch of magic that a new build doesn’t have of course.
I used to live in a village next to the new Development Northstowe, near Cambridge, the biggest housing development since Milton Keynes, 10,000 houses. Initial plans were to include 40% affordable homes which was negotiated down to 20% by Gallagher Homes. The minimum acceptable room size was also negotiated down.
Googling it now only really reveals marketing from all of the usual suspects and P.R
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cambridge-news....
The reality, £375k for a 3 bed shoebox that you couldn’t even fit a single car on the driveway
It’s ok though as there’s a guided bus....
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cambridge-news....
Googling it now only really reveals marketing from all of the usual suspects and P.R
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cambridge-news....
The reality, £375k for a 3 bed shoebox that you couldn’t even fit a single car on the driveway
It’s ok though as there’s a guided bus....
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cambridge-news....
MC Bodge said:
V8RX7 said:
Generally it isn't, agricultural land is circa £10k an acre
If the Gov't wanted to buy fields and built homes cheaply - it could
If most farms go to the wall in the next few years then they may well be doing that. If the Gov't wanted to buy fields and built homes cheaply - it could
.... It would be a shame for parts of the UK to become completely built-up, though.
Land, they don't make it any more...
Hence my earlier post about 29 sites from just one council.
Equus said:
Nickbrapp said:
I bet they would sell like hot cakes.
I wouldn't bank on it, for the reason I mentioned above: you might think it's a great idea, prospective purchasers might think it's a great idea.... but unless you can persuade mortgage lenders to value them over the odds (which you won't), then it's going nowhere.I bought my current house off the market, 2 bed set in 5 acres with 12+ garages.
I asked the local Agent to value it
He valued it at half what I'd paid "Because no 2 bed in the area has sold for more"
You couldn't have bought the bloody building plot for his valuation !
The exception being retirement flats - built in premium areas, to a good spec with good room sizes they sell for ridiculous amounts.
blueg33 said:
Government, local government, MOD and nhs own loads of land. My job is to persuade them to let me develop it.
Hence my earlier post about 29 sites from just one council.
Yes but they want (IME) market value - they don't want to sell their land at agricultural value to Housing Associations.Hence my earlier post about 29 sites from just one council.
MC Bodge said:
If most farms go to the wall in the next few years then they may well be doing that.
.... It would be a shame for parts of the UK to become completely built-up, though.
Land, they don't make it any more...
How much of England do you think is built upon? In percent? Not an intended dig at all, its a just a number that is well below what many guess at..... It would be a shame for parts of the UK to become completely built-up, though.
Land, they don't make it any more...
Late to the thread but the OP resonates with my thoughts a couple of years ago when we moved.
We seen the same things and foresaw the same issues. Ended up buying a house built in ‘99 which, although similar, seems to have just preceded the nonsense that we are seeing nowadays, with regards to over crowding and unsuitable garages and no parking.
A few months ago, we took a drive past one house we quite liked but didn’t proceed with due to the afore mentioned concerns and came away feeling pretty smug. Cars abandoned everywhere and, dare i say it.... the ‘affordable housing’ on the estate was as excepted... old e36 bmw saloon with weeds growing through it, broken plastic kids toys littering the front gardens, fat doleites sat on the front steps smoking. All that a stones throw from pretty nice, 500k+ 4 bed detached properties.
We seen the same things and foresaw the same issues. Ended up buying a house built in ‘99 which, although similar, seems to have just preceded the nonsense that we are seeing nowadays, with regards to over crowding and unsuitable garages and no parking.
A few months ago, we took a drive past one house we quite liked but didn’t proceed with due to the afore mentioned concerns and came away feeling pretty smug. Cars abandoned everywhere and, dare i say it.... the ‘affordable housing’ on the estate was as excepted... old e36 bmw saloon with weeds growing through it, broken plastic kids toys littering the front gardens, fat doleites sat on the front steps smoking. All that a stones throw from pretty nice, 500k+ 4 bed detached properties.
Edited by ColdoRS on Friday 12th July 22:46
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff