LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LETTERS
From: Philip Waddy, partner at West Waddy ADP and chairman, Royal Institute of British Architects planning group
More on-site monitoring should be required Dear Editor Once approved, there is little if any control over the quality of what actually gets built. Unlike building control, where a completion certificate is issued, there is no certification of compliance with planning consent. In my experience, once permission is granted and conditions discharged, planning authorities seldom monitor what actually happens on-site. Architects traditionally administer construction projects and are held liable for ensuring compliance with standards, both planning and building control. But with more than half of UK construction output delivered via design-and-build, who takes responsibility? Some form of completion certification would encourage applicants, agents, developers and builders to ensure that what is built meets the expectations of the original planning permission. It may be a radical suggestion, but the system might better be served by a single approvals process for the built environment, starting with outline planning permission, then detailed consent, then technical consent, then finally post-completion certification. EDITOR’S NOTE We have argued in editorials that the planning system is odd in that it fails to certify compliance upon completion of a development. In Spain it is not possible to have a permanent electricity meter connected until the architect and the planning officer have certified compliance with both planning and building control approvals. For a place of work, a doctor’s certificate of compliance with health regulations is also required. The Grenfell disaster story underlines the need not just for the ‘golden thread’ of continuous responsibility from start to finish and then in use but also the need for an independent professional to certify compliance. n
22
Planning in London
¡PILLO!
Carbuncular nomination upsets its architect It’s the one award that no architect wants to win, but having narrowly escaped collecting this year’s Carbuncle Cup for Britain’s worst new building, the designer of a lurid orange ecohouse in Streatham has spoken of his outrage at being nominated, reports The Times. The low-energy house in a leafy area of Streatham (RIGHT) was described as looking “more like an electricity substation than a home” by the judges. Chris Moore, 39, a partner at Pace Jefford Moore, has hit back, however, saying he is “very proud” of the design, adding: “I’m an architect — I know what I’m doing.” Mr Moore, who lives in the £800,000 home with his fiancée and 20-month-old daughter, told the Evening Standard that the nomination called into question the award’s validity and that it would be better used to highlight large abuses of public space rather than single out his dream home. The judges in the end presented the 2018 Carbuncle Cup to a £45 million leisure centre and car park in Stockport. Part of a £1 billion regeneration project, it was described as a “sad metaphor for our failing high streets” and an “absolute monstrosity”. Designed by BDP, its garish cladding and arbitrary angles failed to impress a panel of judges that included the editor of Building Design which organises the annual award.
Delivery test will undermine design quality says Councillor "We are being beaten up under the new housing delivery test to actually deliver houses and that means planning permissions going through that, many years ago, would quite frankly not have gone through, because people are desperate to get houses permitted and then actually see them built. The ability to turn things down and have design discussions and to refuse on design grounds is very limited today. If they are turned down, we see what happens when it goes to appeal and there's political pressure on inspectors to nod them through. There's
enormous momentum in government to get boxes built and I'm worried that the design principles will be forfeited in that rush." – so says Councillor Martin Tett, the leader of Buckinghamshire County Council and chair of the LGA environment, economy, housing and transport board. He was speaking at the Conservative Party Conference. (ALSO see his article in PIL 105)
Paragraph 55 is dead – long live paragraph 81, part E The notorious country house clause, much loved by architects and their clients since it allows the possibility of ‘exceptional design’ to overcome all other reasoning and allow for the building of a new house in the ‘countryside’. In the reformatting of the NPPF the same provision subsists but its location is renumbered. ”Paragraph 81. It’s not exactly Rolling off the tongue. Paragraph 55 is kind of cool, like Route 66 or 99 Flake. 55 is rock around the clock, a young Elvis about to break through and the apotheosis of James Dean. 55 is hip homes for the young at heart. But 81? Plan B thinks only of Toxteth riots and the wedding of Charles and Diana – and we all know where that ended up.” – quote from Plan B in The Planner
Validation delays "If local authorities were able to sit on applications for two or three months before validating them, then there would be absolute uproar. The Government would not sit back and allow that to happen – but that’s exactly what’s happening with appeals.” – Simon Ricketts