Home

elizabethwatsonillustration.com

Proud sponsors of the

ARCHITECTURE IS EVERYONE’S THING

Andy Foster, Raise Architects

We struggle to make sense of Councillor Cruddas as her speech continues to break up. Now her image has frozen, and the chairperson moves on to Councillor Spellman, who asks, ‘how could a corrugated metal roof ever be considered appropriate next to a listed thatched cottage?’ Mrs Young, the head of planning, interjects, saying that the design is modern and provides a coherent solution. She also concedes that ‘councillors may have a different opinion.’

I’m listening to a virtual meeting of the planning committee. Under consideration is a proposal for a modern house in a historic rural village. Aside from the technical difficulties with the video call, things are going to script. The objectors have attempted to cram every possible reason to reject the proposal into their allotted three minutes. The applicants have demonstrated how reasonable they have been. The chairman of the parish council has emphasised that there has been a good level of local consultation. And Councillor Cruddas, who represents the village in question and is not a member of the planning committee, has made it clear that architecture is not her thing. Her only objective is to ensure a democratic outcome. She is sitting so firmly on the picket fence it is eye-watering.

It becomes apparent that the local objectors have mounted a fierce campaign in the village to stop the development. Unusually, the matter has been considered by the parish council on two separate occasions. Design meetings have been held with the architects to consider the proposals further, and this has led to some changes, including the introduction of dark timber wall cladding. But the tin roof, which is the source of most of the objections, is retained. The parish council has voted and found the revised proposals to be acceptable. The objectors remain convinced that a contemporary design is wrong next to this listed cottage, or perhaps anywhere.

Back in the planning committee meeting, the chair opens the debate up to further comment from councillors. One councillor is keen to replace some fruit trees that will be lost, even though this has already been agreed. Another raises the issue of flooding, even though the site is in a low-risk area. But the subject to which everyone returns is what to make of the corrugated metal roof? Councillor Birchall says that slate would be more appropriate, and that tin can be very noisy in the rain. While Councillor Trendle thinks corrugated metal is suitable in a rural setting, particularly given the nature of nearby farm buildings.

The members of the committee have a difficult decision to make, and the debate continues. On the one hand, the planning officers have recommended the

John Gollop/iStock

application for approval, confirming that it complies with planning policy. On the other hand, the members are aware of the strength of local opinion on the subjective question of roof aesthetics. They need to form their own view while also being aware of what is possible within the constraints of the planning system; a system that does not seek the best solution for any situation but instead asks if the proposed solution is satisfactory?

And, interestingly, at this moment of decisionmaking, there are no design professionals in the virtual room. The architects have previously put their case in a written design statement and save for the occasional clarification from planning officers, the proceedings are carried out entirely by elected representatives of the local borough. This characteristic – that architecture is public art – has always appealed to me. As an architect, I can argue my case. I can justify. And I can give historical precedent. As a member of the public, you can respond by saying I hear you and I understand – but I still don’t like it.

Councillor Dawson has had enough of the debate and moves to propose that the application be approved. Councillor Piggott seconds the proposal, and this triggers a vote on the matter. One by one, the members of the committee give their response, and the application is approved unanimously – planning permission is therefore granted. Unfortunately, being an online meeting, we don’t get to see the inevitable elated response of the applicants nor the dejected looks on the faces of the objectors. It would be easy to think it a shame that the process results in winners and losers but, equally, it is right that people are passionate about the development of their place. In other words, architecture is everyone’s thing.

LANDOWNERS

ARE YOU MAXIMISING THE VALUE OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT LAND?

• Are you in an option agreement with a developer? • Is the price you are being offered fair? • Have negotiations stalled?

As independent Chartered Surveyors, Valuers and Cost Consultants LFP have successfully helped landowners maximise the return on their land under option agreements for many years. The final value landowners receive is often greatly reduced by pessimistic construction costs and other valuation variables assessed by the developer. Our experience and expertise in this field allows us to interrogate and challenge the developer’s assessment with confidence that we can generate better value for the landowner. For more information, references and case studies contact: Lawrence Foote 07976 012933 • lawrence.foote@LFPLtd.com

Lawrence Foote & Partners Chartered Surveyors and Valuers 31 Cheap Street, Sherborne DT9 3PU

LONDON | SHERBORNE | PETERBOROUGH