Delivering gentle density and the current context of planning

1 Introduction in context
2 Delivering 'gentle density' as it may appear in the future NPPF
3 How should designers deliver ‘gentle density’, as planning policy requires?'
4 Related articles on Designing Buildings

[edit] Introduction in context

This article was written prior to the general election and the incoming Labour government, who have since proposed a number of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), along with a consultation which ended in September 2024, see article; consultation on proposed reforms to NPPF and other changes to the planning system.

The term 'gentle density' appears alongside the description of beauty in the notes which accompany the NPPF (as updated in December 2023) which stated that the then Conservative government would deliver ‘enough of the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, ensuring the environment is protected and giving local people a greater say on where and where not to place new, beautiful development…specifically, this includes changes to…promote more beautiful homes, including through gentle density’.

The proposed changes to the NPPF by the incoming Labour government included: Requiring “well designed” development

"17. The NPPF was updated in December 2023 to include six additional references to the term ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ when relating to well-designed development. This is further to five references to ‘beautiful’ places already set out within the September 2023 NPPF."

"18. The Government recognises the importance of beauty in the built environment as an important objective of well-designed places. However, as recognised by previous consultees, including further references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ may result in inconsistency in how it is applied in decision-making, as many find the term subjective and difficult to define. There is already a clear framework through policy and guidance on how to achieve well-designed places (as set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code - NMDC), to enable this to be decided by local planning authorities, working together with developers and the community, which is accepted and understood by communities and the built environment sector."

The is as yet no indication of change to the references of gentle density as indicated in the consultation to the NPPF, although there are a number of related changes to issues surrounding density, in particular urban uplift. For further information see the article consultation on proposed reforms to NPPF and other changes to the planning system and NPPF consultation briefing notes on terms.

[edit] Delivering 'gentle density' as it may appear in the future NPPF

Since the rather vague concept of ‘gentle density’ (the word ‘gentle’ presumably introduced for political purposes) became a central theme of the National Planning Policy Framework (as it was updated in December 2023), it has fallen to architects, developers and master planners to both make sense of it and deliver it.

The Georgian style is clearly a favourite, both among politicians and local communities. Keir Starmer has made the case for ‘gentle urban development’ and identifies Georgian-style housing as achieving this; and the Conservative’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission has long extolled the virtues of Eighteenth Century architecture.

Consumers embrace Georgian styles, and they will pay more for them. In 2018, Policy Exchange published ‘Building More, Building Beautiful: How design and style can unlock the housing crisis’, a forerunner to the work of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. It used extensive polling, which showed that in the design of new homes, traditional building design was much preferred over contemporary architecture. Across all demographics, a large majority agreed that newly built properties should fit in with their surroundings. Support was used to substantiate the claim that NIMBYism (i.e. Not-In-My- Back-Yard-ism) can be overcome if design better reflects people’s desire for traditional architecture.

The style is exemplified at Poundbury, the community developed by the Duchy of Cornwall in Dorset, which is Georgian not only in its density but in every aspect of its design. Properties at Poundbury sell for 55 percent more per hectare due to a combination of public preferences and higher densities, according to analysis by Create Streets.

To understand whether ‘gentle density’ can benefit the quality and quantity of new developments requires a definition, given it has not had a place in the planning lexicon until now. This is where the problems start. ‘Density’ is relatively straightforward, as it can be measured in quantifiable terms. ‘Gentle’ means very little in a planning and design context, but its function, on any plain reading, is clearly to limit density rather than increase it. The wording purports to enable a higher volume of housebuilding, while also giving leeway to appease anti-development communities.

[edit] How should designers deliver ‘gentle density’, as planning policy requires?'

It is no coincidence that both the current government ( The conservative government at the time of writing) and the Labour Party have promoted the Georgian style of architecture as synonymous with gentle density. Not only is this style of architecture popular, but Georgian-style housing can achieve up to 40 to 60 homes per hectare, which is significantly more than the average housing development (typically 30-35 homes per hectare on comparable greenfield sites).

This comparison should be considered in context. While 60 homes per hectare may be considered dense in rural and suburban areas, it bears no comparison to a 40 storey apartment block in a city centre location.

Many question whether the Georgian style of architecture espoused at Poundbury should be mandated as the future of good design. Georgian architecture may represent the very best in design to some; to others the repurposing of a centuries-old style is regarded defeatist, retrograde, or even ‘Disneyesque’.

Perhaps schemes such as Poundbury will be effective not only in encouraging NIMBYs to accept development, but also accept higher density than they might have otherwise tolerated. But this only works in those areas where the average density is lower than a typical neo-Georgian development. Take that approach in London and the perfectly acceptable densities currently achieved will be lost, homes will become increasingly scarce, house prices will sky-rocket and local centres will become desolate and unviable.

Over the last parliament (in 2023) we have seen ‘beauty’ and ‘gentle density’ embedded in both planning policy and case law. As the then Secretary of State Robert Jenrick said when introducing the concept in 2020, through design codes we have the structure to deliver a “higher regard” on quality and design; one that draws on “the idea of design codes and pattern books that built Bath, Belgravia and Bournville”.

But we still lack anything constructive to prevent other housebuilders from failing on ‘beauty’ grounds. This was clearly demonstrated last April when the Secretary of State Michael Gove called in and subsequently refused planning permission for a 165 home development by Berkeley Homes in Cranbrook, Kent. The outcome of the Berkeley case was “no” but not “no, because beauty is…”. This potential test case is crying out for a clear definition of beauty; a clear selection of criteria; which is yet to be addressed.

In practice this (and similar, subsequent decisions) makes the whole process of designing new developments more fraught with uncertainty. And uncertainty is the last thing we need at the moment, with so many other uncertainties with the planning system. It provides ammunition for planning committees to refuse other schemes on similar grounds. Without anyone knowing what the benchmark is, design could be an easy target to justify refusal, which, as some have suggested, was perhaps the government’s main objective.

ATJ 150 Nigel Booen, Director of Design, Boyer 350.jpg

The bulk of this article appears in the AT Journal issue 150, summer 2024 as 'How should designers deliver ‘gentle density’, as planning policy requires?' and was written by Nigel Booen, Director of Design, Boyer.

The introduction was written by the DB editor in October 2024, as context following a change of government and consultation regarding changes to the the NPPF.

--CIAT