Design challenges for house builders

Trevor Wright from Redrow talks about the problems facing developers and house builders working in the current planning system.

Sometimes I allow my mind to wander, somewhat wistfully, back to the "good old days". You could potato stamp a layout, have a quick chat with the planning officer, submit the application (a couple of pungent dyeline prints, an application form, oh! and a cheque for a few quid), then sit back and wait for a few weeks. Of course, it wasn't quite that simple. But compared to today's complexities it sometimes feels like it. Suburban schemes built under this planning regime are now home to families up and down the country: the landscaping has matured, windows replaced with uPVC and everyone is happy!

Many of these developments seem, however, to represent the aspirations of people looking to climb that rickety housing ladder: the lure of the detached house with on plot parking is still many people's idea of utopia. The house building industry has had to adapt to a rapidly moving agenda of issues initially aimed at utilising brownfield sites, increasing densities and reducing car parking provision (as set out in the now-superseded PPG3: 1.5 cars per family and no visitors allowed!). This transition from "suburban to urban" has delivered many quality developments where the developer has successfully adapted to this new environment by recognising that the skills and discipline required to deliver such schemes are indeed very different. Things are getting better. Unfortunately, however, the focus tends to be on the unsuccessful schemes where these components have been poorly considered, resulting in developments typical of the low scoring schemes identified in the CABE Housing Audits. The type of schemes identified by CAEB all demonstrate a common lack of vision, skill and basic understanding of what makes a good place.

Out vs in

There is a widely held view that these "places" are the result of developers refusing to utilise the services of architects relying on their internal, often unqualified in-house designers. Whilst there is some truth to this, it is not always accurate. Many poor schemes are in fact designed by "architects" ably assisted, in some cases, by the less discerning planning authorities. It is easy to place the blame squarely at the feet of the corporate bad boys, but they are rarely solely responsible.

 

In my experience, any quality scheme you may care to mention will be the direct result of someone, somewhere - perhaps the developer, possibly a philanthropic land owner - leading the scheme, from inception to completion, driving in design quality, forcing out apathy and mediocrity. Simply parachuting in an architect is not the answer; rarely in all but the highest profile projects does he or she have authority over the person holding the purse strings.

Certainly, there are many capable architects, and the stimulus they provide is essential. But it is important not to forget the fundamental role urban design has to play in the process. It is pointless thinking about architecture if the basic functionality and structure of the site layout is flawed. No amount of architectural flair will ever overcome a place that does not work on an everyday level, meeting the needs of residents and visitors as a community. This could be as mundane as being able to answer questions such as: "where do I keep my wheelie bin?".

Getting it built

But design is only half the battle. A perfectly well designed scheme can be totally destroyed through poor implementation. This is a major concern and, perhaps, the area where developers need to "up skill" the most. There are many layers of management within house builders; projects can involve dozens of individuals, all adding their own little piece to the jigsaw, - an interpretation of where that piece fits. The designer is there to exert influence over this process; it is their responsibility to set out clear ideas to the development team (including, crucially, the local authority) to ensure this jigsaw fits together properly. Making sure people listen, of course, is down to leadership.

Changing the model

At Redrow, we have addressed this issue by setting up regional design teams under the leadership of design directors. These are independent teams of both qualified and unqualified designers (architectural and urban) and, importantly, associated with local architectural practices. It is our belief that by elevating design to this level of independence, the influence of designers can be felt throughout the life of the project and not just switched off once planning permission is received. Encouragingly, this approach has been well received by design professionals and local authorities. will gain credibility as the benefits of this approach begin to emerge.

 

The function of the "in-house" design team does have an important role to play in the delivery of quality development. But the traditional house builder model needs to be reconsidered as the need to engage with local authorities and design review panels become ever more important. Quality design has to be placed higher up the corporate agenda, becoming a real objective. The biggest challenge is getting the message across to management and staff at all levels involved in the delivery process: good design can add real value to the business. If house builders can do this, they'll be in a much better position to take on the competition.

Trevor Wright is Design Director at Redrow Homes