The near future: Bland or inspiring?
Poundbury - a pastiche, but appreciated. © Des Blenkinsopp
The South Kesteven Local Plan, still in draft but almost certain to be approved, tells us that provision has been made in Stamford for a major development over the next 15 or so years of some 2000 houses to the North and NorthEast of the present limits of the town. There will be other considerably smaller developments as well, of course, but this one development will have a greater effect on our town than anything else that has happened in many generations. Encouragingly, the Local Plan speaks of “envisaging a high quality development (with) its own distinctive character while allowing the essential character of Stamford to be preserved”. But getting from the aspiration to the reality is beset with hazards.
Generally, once planning permission is granted, the large nationally-known developers want their developments to be completed, sold, and the money in the bank in a much shorter span than 15 years; think perhaps more in terms of 3-5 years. However, there is much empirical evidence that the longer a development takes from start to finish the more diversity and character it is likely to have. (In extremis, consider Stamford itself where the more visually interesting parts of the town grew over centuries.)
Further, those developments which have attracted the most lasting acclaim have almost inevitably been the work of many individual architects rather than of a team producing variations on four or five ‘standard’ designs. “All very well”, I hear you say, but the need for houses and the economics of producing them is such in the modern world that what we might call the ‘big estate’ approach is bound to prevail. The exceptions all tend to be in very expensive estates offering an exclusivity which only a tiny fraction of the population will ever be able to afford, what we might call the Moor Park or the Bradenham Beeches end of the spectrum.
“Not necessarily or even inevitable”, some will respond, “what about the Poundburys, the Nansledans and the Knockroons”. Each started with a masterplan and a set of guiding principles but also a determination to have a wide diversity of designs, and to include work units, a high street, civic amenities and interesting public spaces within a street plan itself embracing variety, rather than the predictable lay-out so beloved of so many estates of the recent past. All three had the Prince of Wales as progenitor which immediately makes them suspect to some, necessarily lacking in architectural merit, and no more than pastiche. However, the people who live in them hugely appreciate the qualities this approach has brought and find it ‘life enhancing’ which can’t be said of many of the estates of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Moreover, the main tenets of the message have been heard loud and clear elsewhere and repeated, albeit not slavishly, in developments such as Great Kneighton and Accordia. Perhaps most important for the further spread of such practices is that house values in such places have generally outstripped those on more traditional ‘beige estates’.
One part of me is tempted to ‘sign off’ with the somewhat negative thought that what the people of Stamford might wish for will have little bearing on what is actually built as in the end the developers will make all the decisions. Against that, I am encouraged by the thought that the Planning Policy Framework now calls for ‘good design’ and gives the Planning Authority powers to pursue it. Perhaps more important is that the land in question is owned by people who, I believe, have the town’s interests at heart.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Stamford joined the ranks of those towns with a truly eye-catching, maybe even ‘award-winning’, new suburb. It is probably asking too much to hope that it would attract visitors in years to come in the same way that the town centre now does. But hope does apparently spring eternal!
Generally, once planning permission is granted, the large nationally-known developers want their developments to be completed, sold, and the money in the bank in a much shorter span than 15 years; think perhaps more in terms of 3-5 years. However, there is much empirical evidence that the longer a development takes from start to finish the more diversity and character it is likely to have. (In extremis, consider Stamford itself where the more visually interesting parts of the town grew over centuries.)
Further, those developments which have attracted the most lasting acclaim have almost inevitably been the work of many individual architects rather than of a team producing variations on four or five ‘standard’ designs. “All very well”, I hear you say, but the need for houses and the economics of producing them is such in the modern world that what we might call the ‘big estate’ approach is bound to prevail. The exceptions all tend to be in very expensive estates offering an exclusivity which only a tiny fraction of the population will ever be able to afford, what we might call the Moor Park or the Bradenham Beeches end of the spectrum.
“Not necessarily or even inevitable”, some will respond, “what about the Poundburys, the Nansledans and the Knockroons”. Each started with a masterplan and a set of guiding principles but also a determination to have a wide diversity of designs, and to include work units, a high street, civic amenities and interesting public spaces within a street plan itself embracing variety, rather than the predictable lay-out so beloved of so many estates of the recent past. All three had the Prince of Wales as progenitor which immediately makes them suspect to some, necessarily lacking in architectural merit, and no more than pastiche. However, the people who live in them hugely appreciate the qualities this approach has brought and find it ‘life enhancing’ which can’t be said of many of the estates of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Moreover, the main tenets of the message have been heard loud and clear elsewhere and repeated, albeit not slavishly, in developments such as Great Kneighton and Accordia. Perhaps most important for the further spread of such practices is that house values in such places have generally outstripped those on more traditional ‘beige estates’.
One part of me is tempted to ‘sign off’ with the somewhat negative thought that what the people of Stamford might wish for will have little bearing on what is actually built as in the end the developers will make all the decisions. Against that, I am encouraged by the thought that the Planning Policy Framework now calls for ‘good design’ and gives the Planning Authority powers to pursue it. Perhaps more important is that the land in question is owned by people who, I believe, have the town’s interests at heart.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Stamford joined the ranks of those towns with a truly eye-catching, maybe even ‘award-winning’, new suburb. It is probably asking too much to hope that it would attract visitors in years to come in the same way that the town centre now does. But hope does apparently spring eternal!
Peter Stean
