Design Control Policies for Small Areas

8/3/2019 Design Control Policies for Small Areas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/design-control-policies-for-small-areas 1/23

This article was downloaded by:[University of Sydney][University of Sydney]

On: 14 June 2007Access Details: [subscription number 777157961]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Theory & PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713624517

Design Control Policies for Small Areas: The DacorumResidential Area Character StudyTony Hall; James Doe

To cite this Article: Hall, Tony and Doe, James , 'Design Control Policies for SmallAreas: The Dacorum Residential Area Character Study', Planning Theory & Practice,1:2, 235 - 256To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14649350020008413URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649350020008413

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

© Taylor and Francis 2007

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713624517

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649350020008413

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649350020008413

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713624517



D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e

r s i t y o f S y d n e y ] A t : 1 2 : 0 3 1 4 J u n e 2 0 0 7

Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 1, No. 2, 235±256, 2000

Design Control Policies for Small

Areas: The Dacorum Residential AreaCharacter StudyTONY HALL & JAMES DOE

ABSTRACT Over the last 15 years, increasing emphasis within planning has been laid on the

layout and physical form of settlements. Unfortunately, planning systems in developed countrieshave not, in general, possessed signi®cantly powerful methods to respond to this trend. Variousmoves have been made in a number of countries to correct this situation. One attempt to ®ll the

gap has been the design area approach devised in the UK by the ®rst author. This was introducedinto planning practice by the second author at Dacorum Borough Council in the form of itsResidential Area Character Study. The method behind this study is fully described. The study hasbeen used in development control practice and subsequently absorbed into the local development

plan. Contrary to what might have been predicted, this has proved a remarkably trouble free process and reasons for this are advanced.

Introduction

This article relates the results of a collaborative effort between an academic and apractitioner to introduce small area policies that related directly to urban form. We hopethat it will prove both useful to practitioners and a further stimulus to academic thought.

For at least the last 15 years, there has been an increasing re-emphasis within townplanning in developed countries on the layout, landscaping and three-dimensionaldesign of settlements. During the 1980s, there was a re-awakening of the importance of urban design, not only in terms of aesthetics but as a way of providing greater security,sociability and a higher quality of life. These matters are important for public partici-pation as the physical outcomes of the planning process are what ultimately the publicrelate to and by which they judge its success. During the 1990s, increasing concern forsustainability took the matter further. If the sustainable city is to conserve energy, topromote bio-diversity and do all the other things required of it, then its layout, plantingand three-dimensional form must be designed to facilitate this. The problem forplanning systems throughout the developed world has been that they have either grownaway from, or have never properly addressed, the policies, procedures and techniquesnecessary to achieve these ends. The plans used to control development have employedtwo-dimensional maps to show homogenous land-use allocations. Methods of analysing

and prescribing urban form, such as townscape techniques, have been available formany decades but not generally used in development plans. In extreme cases, there have

been no local plans at all.

Tony Hall, Anglia Polytechnic University, Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 1SQ, UK. James Doe, South

Bedfordshire District Council (formerly of Dacorum Borough Council).

1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/00/020235-22 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080 /1464935002000841 3





236 A. Hall & J. Doe

To say that there should be more detailed plans to control urban form is one thing: todevise a way of doing it another. What is set out here is one approach to the problem,the design area technique developed by Tony Hall, and its application in British practice

by James Doe for Dacorum Borough Council. It enables a plan area to be disaggregatedon the basis of policy towards the physical characteristics rather than land-use notation.

It provides a more ¯exible and powerful vehicle for conveying detailed policies towardsresidential character. The Dacorum study has been used in British planning control andincorporated into the Borough’s local plan. Although, in contrast to the 1980s, the 1990sin the UK brought a return to a plan-led system and a greater emphasis on design,nevertheless there was, during this period, still a resistance to incorporating detaileddesign controls within plans. There were repeated calls for `simpler’ plans and ahousebuilding industry that was ever ready to defend its freedom of action. Theprediction might have been that the Dacorum study would have faced repeatedchallenge at every stage. In the event, the key lessons from the experience have been theease which it was introduced and the lack of opposition that it has encountered.

The Limitations of Existing Planning Systems

Outside the UK, it is common for planning systems to employ detailed land-use controlson a zonal basis. British readers may, indeed, be surprised by the high degree of controlto be found in most US cities (Wakeford, 1990). American cities frequently have, inaddition, processes for design review for judging the quality of proposed development.The questions that have been raised (Habe, 1989), though, are: does this go beyond theaesthetics of buildings?; and why is the general environmental quality so poor? Wasthere a way of bringing about urban quality of European levels? The planning systemsof North-West Europe do, indeed, contain small area plan units of which the DutchBestimmingsplan is perhaps the best-known example. However, they rarely containthree-dimensional guidance and controls and there is suspicion that quality owes moreto cultural norms and professional traditions than to explicit planning methods (Hall,1996).

Nevertheless, there have been notable attempts in North America to develop newways of achieving urban design goals. The most publicized American efforts have beendirected at building codes, notably by Duany and Plater-Zyberk (Kreiger & Lennertz,

1992) as epitomized by the settlement of Seaside, Florida. However, these are limited inscope and cannot represent the whole range of urban design concerns. Some US andCanadian cities have developed broader and more sophisticated approaches to achievingdesign goals (Punter, 1997, 1999) but these laudable attempts have yet to be consolidatedinto a systematic planning method. It is in Europe where experiments in genuinely newplan methods (as opposed to new emphasis on design guides and review procedures)can be found. Some of the most signi®cant European efforts have been in France andthese are summarized in a separate section below.

The British experience has been more extreme than elsewhere because of its discretion-ary, rather than plan-determined, approach, and the dominant role of the centralgovernment. From the 1970s onwards, local plan coverage was not a requirement norwas a local plan, where it existed, the determining factor in granting consent fordevelopment. During the 1980s, government policy discouraged intervention on mattersof design (Punter & Carmona, 1998). The absence of real controls on design, and the lackof methods and procedures for producing relevant policy, created a hands-off situation





Design Control Policies for Small Areas 237

with the planning system working in a reactive and mediating, rather than goal-oriented, mode.

However, from the late 1980s in Britain onwards, pressure for change built up, as inother countries, not least because of a substantial increase in the demand for housing. Incontrast to the more laissez-faire policies of the 1980s, the 1990s saw a process of gradual

national coverage by local plans and their policies made the primary consideration inplanning control. More recently, the desire to achieve more sustainable patterns of settlement has led to the pursuit of more compact urban form incorporating mixes of uses (Urban Task Force, 1999). Moreover, the signi®cant and continuing increase in thedemand for dwellings, and a desire to locate them within existing urban areas, hasnecessitated renewed attention to the processes of physical planning.

Unfortunately, there is still a lack of explicitly published policy that could guide theprocess of design. It is true that design guides have a long history but they deal with arestricted range of topics. It is also the case that, in recent years, design policies in Britishlocal plans have become fuller and more extensive (Punter & Carmona, 1998). However,

neither the design guides nor the standard format of local plans are suf®cient inthemselves to meet the current challenges. The implications of policy for small areas arerarely made explicit, particularly for those localities that are neither historic nor in atown centre. There is little recognition of the variation in the intensity of developmentcontrol from place to place. A local planning authority’s design policy can often only bededuced in retrospect from the reaction of the planning authority to proposals fordevelopment. This causes great inconvenience to both the public in general, andpotential developers in particular, and is inimical to effective design control.

The Design Area Approach

There are a number of possible explanations for the lack of appropriate methods (asopposed to political will). One is the absence of the type of the extensive methodologythat exists, for example, for strategic planning. There is no generally accepted conceptualstructure or language that could enable practitioners to convey complex guidance forparticular localities in an unambiguous manner. There are sources from other ®elds of study that could be employed, in particular urban morphology, but existing methods donot encourage their use. The need is to develop a method that would allow these ideasto be absorbed.

Tony Hall began to study these matters in the late 1980s (Hall, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c).The research method was as follows. The gaps in current practice were identi®ed bycomparing the actual methods and content with desirable planning goals. If one candevelop a frame of mind where preconceptions are removed and international compari-sons are made then the shortcomings suddenly become startlingly apparent. From theshape of the holes in practice the outline content of what should ®ll them can bededuced. The outlines then have to be ®lled out with new techniques. Searches weremade of other academic traditions and these came to rest in urban morphology andurban design. There was the realization that that there were other academics in these®elds feeling their way in the same direction. To create new plan methods and contentwas, however, a challenging creative process and there was always the consciousness of

being at the beginning of an immense task. Nevertheless, progress was made. The resultswere tested through worked examples. Searches were then made of current practice tosee if any had anticipated the results. Limitations on resources always meant that thiswas never as far reaching as one would have liked. Nevertheless the results were often






surprising and encouraging, con®rming the view that others had seen parts of theproblem and had contributed part of the answer. The ®nal stage was testing in the reallife planning situation and this was one of the purposes of the Dacorum study (Hall,1996).

The basis of the new approach was the recognition that urban design was a pluralist

activity involving negotiation between many parties, not least the general public.Negotiation was best facilitated by the use of clear objectives rather than rigid rules. Theinteraction between design goals and local features should be expressed in terms of design objectives. The problem was how to generate objectives that would be speci®c tosmall areas, re¯ecting their particular circumstances. The key invention was made at thispoint: the design area. The boundaries of design areas would not be pre-set but would varyaccording to the content of the design objective. It then appeared that this rather simpleidea had considerable power. It would facilitate the production of policy for features,such as roads, which were normally to be found on land-use boundaries and not seenas design elements in their own right. It would also facilitate variation in the intensity

of planning control from place to place, something that had been a recurring issue withinBritish planning practice. It was increasingly apparent that level of intervention was acentral component of design control and the concepts used to deal with it could be takenfrom those used to handle incremental change. The boundary of each design area would

be determined by the interaction between the nature of the design objective and theexisting urban form. The alternative objectives were generated by considering ®rst thedifferent levels of intervention and, second, by identifying the different qualities desiredwithin these levels. Standard forms of objectives were thus identi®ed. A possible list, inincreasing order of controller intervention, could be:

· minimum intervention;· restriction to height/bulk envelope;· personalization with plot;· speci®c form or style;· conservation of existing character.

The issue that is most likely to give rise to public reaction is one on which mostland-use plans are silent. This is the redevelopment of existing urban areas where plotsare aggregated, road layouts added to or revised, and buildings replaced. This mayinvolve the replacement of small buildings by large ones and an increase in density for

residential areas. The ®rst two types of standard objective (minimum intervention,height-bulk envelope) do not necessarily conserve the existing form and are consistentwith redevelopment that aggregates plots and changes street patterns. Objectives con-cerned with urban conservation seek both to preserve the existing plot boundaries andinfrastructure and control change within plots. The objective termed personalizationwithin plot aims at preserving the existing form while encouraging diversity andindividual initiative within plots. There is a difference between, say, redeveloping anarea of houses and gardens as ¯ats and maintaining this form while allowing extensionsto houses as residents choose.

These ideas have been developed further, ®rst as a case study of Chelmsford (Hall,1990a, 1990b, 1990c) and second, through a more comprehensive methodology (Hall,1996). In this, the relationship between the goals and objectives was improved, andthe distinction between intentions and outcomes elaborated into a four-way split: theobjectives; the criteria for their achievement; material advising on how they might beachieved; and the control procedures leading to their implementation. Subsequent






development of these ideas has drawn increasingly upon urban morphology as atheoretical base (Hall, 1997).

Innovations in French Practice

Amongst the most interesting examples of parallel developments in current practicehave been certain innovations in France. The principal vehicle for local plans in Franceis the Plan d’Occupation des Sols, or POS, which divides the plan area into zones andspeci®es the regulations for development control within each zone. Legislative changesin 1993 introduced a third generation of POS that could accommodate control of physicalform. The term Qualitatif has been increasingly used to describe such plans. Where theyare used, the POSQ can show concern for mixed-uses, conservation and the quality of urban form and the public realm (Trache, 1999).

Certain innovative examples of POS have employed morphological controls to repro-duce historic form. One of the ®rst was the plan for AsnieÁre sur Oise, a community of

2400 people 35 km north of Paris (Samuels, 1993). Similar approaches were adopted inMennecy, a community of 12 000 people 40 km south of Paris (Kropf, 1996) andMontreuil, a community of 10 000 people to the east of Paris (Trache, 1999). In this lastcase, the town had a historic pattern of plots based upon the horticultural activities thatwere characteristic of the area before the Second World War. The arrangement of greenspaces and walls and the clusters of buildings all served to create a distinctive character.Unfortunately, economic growth and massive redevelopment during the 1960s and 1970sdid great damage to it. The revision of the POS in 1993 presented the opportunity notonly for the preservation of the remaining features but also to guide future growth in a

manner consistent with the historic pattern. Although the analysis and prescription drewon French tradition in urban morphology, they did not neglect the Anglo-Saxontownscape school and regulated views and vistas in the urban landscape. There werefour elements of prescription:

· minima and maxima for plot widths and surface areas;· ratio of built to unbuilt space including speci®cation of street set-backs;· four options for the relationship between density and plot size and the disposition of

public and private open space;· building heights in pursuit of townscape harmony.

Although British planning of®cers might ®nd it astounding, this approach wasconsidered `permissive’ as design details were not controlled but were left to thediscretion of the development control of®cers. However, the roof shape and bulk of new

building were uniformly controlled using three-dimensional drawings as aids.These examples aimed at ensuring that new development respected an existing

historic pattern. The same technique, however, has been used to control large-scalegreen-®eld development in France. Farthing (1999) compared the extensive developmentnorth of Bristol, where there was very little physical control or design input, with the StEloi extension to Poitiers during the 1980s. This was a large addition of 3500 dwellings

to the east of the existing city, covering an area of 123 ha. The planning regulationsspeci®ed:

· size and spacing of buildings in blocks;· road layout siting of local facilities;· layout of neighbourhoods;






· density;· size of dwellings;· tenure of dwellings.

None of these had been speci®ed north of Bristol. Although the St Eloi extension was based on a POS of 1978, the planning thinking stemmed from the same currents of thought and personalities that led to the POSQ of the 1990s, notably the French architectMellisinos who was to be subsequently involved with Montreuil.

The Dacorum Residential Area Character Study

Dacorum Borough contains the towns of Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted and Tring.Hemel Hempstead was a Mark 1 new town, dating largely from the 1950s, which nowhas a population approaching 80 000 people. Berkhamsted and Tring are historic towns,with populations of 18 000 and 11 000 respectively, lying astride one of the old routes

from London to the north-west for road, railway and canal where they pass through theChiltern Hills. Almost all of the area of the Borough outside the main urban areas iscovered by either the Metropolitan Green Belt or the Chiltern Area of OutstandingNatural Beauty. Its location in a prosperous yet highly constrained part of south-eastEngland made the question of how to accommodate the increasing demand for newdwellings particularly acute. The problem was aggravated by an aware and vocalresident population.

During the 1980s signi®cant resistance developed to the prospect of `town cramming’,especially among the residents of Berkhamsted and Tring. The Borough had a compre-hensive local plan from 1984, the District Plan (Dacorum, 1984). The Borough was at thattime preparing its Borough Local Plan (Dacorum, 1995a) which subsequently replaced it.However, the Council saw the local plan, in both existing and revised forms, as aninadequate vehicle for sustaining a development control policy that would deal withissues of restraint and local character as experienced differently in the three main towns.The need for differing policies for these towns was clearest in regard to the position of Hemel Hempstead. As a large `new town’ it did not share the antique ambience of Berkhamsted and Tring but did have a historic signi®cance of its own and one that was

becoming more and more appreciated as the immediate post-war period receded intothe past. It too would need protection from town cramming in a way that recognized its

own particular character. The Council also needed to take account of the changes thatwere occurring in central government policy, namely an increased awareness of theimportance of environmental factors and the return to a plan-based system. It also tooknote of the approaches adopted by other planning authorities. After a search for newtechniques and approaches, James Doe, one of the Council’s of®cers, settled upon thedesign area approach (Hall, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) as the theoretical basis of the newplanning guidance. The result was the Residential Area Character Study (Dacorum, 1995b).In this, he divided the towns into design areas, analysed the character of each area andproduced appropriate design objectives.

After production of the draft version (Dacorum, 1995b), the study was subjected tothorough public consultation. Although it was broadly restrictive in nature (most of theresidential character areas were to have their `character maintained’), there was littleopposition expressed by the development industry. The Council subsequently adoptedit formally as supplementary planning guidance (Dacorum, 1998a) and then employedit in development control decision-making. At a later date, it was also subject to a






comprehensive review as a part of the process of incorporating it in the subsequentrevision of the Borough Local Plan (Dacorum, 1998b).

The Study Method

Setting the Ground RulesThe ®rst stage of the method was to set general parameters of investigation. James Doe

based the study broadly on the physical features of the towns and their constituentdesign areas, and not on their social and economic characteristics. The exception to thisgeneral approach was the status given to `local perception’ and neighbourhood qualitiesin producing the design areas. Policies were to be:

· in accordance with national policy;· able to provide `guidance’ for those seeking planning permission;· ¯exible enough to allow scope for innovation in design, layout and realistic choice;

yet

· ®rm enough to exercise control over development;· a positive tool rather than a negative set of policies;· applied with relative ease and not be ambiguous or over-complicated;· understood by all parties involved in the development process;

and

· based on clearly identi®ed and recognizable areas that re¯ect the variety of character

in the Borough.These study parameters led to the establishment of substantive study objectives to

guide its scope and operation. They were set at three levels in the following hierarchy:

(a) study goal;(b) study aims;(c) town objectives.

The study goal was:

To use the development control process to improve, maintain, enhance andwhere considered necessary, change the character and appearance of de®nedresidential areas within Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted and Tring.

The study aims were:

· to achieve a high standard of design of buildings and spaces according to the characterof de®ned areas within the towns;

· to avoid the recognized problems of over-development and `town cramming’;· to facilitate variety in layout and design between de®ned areas, although consistent

with the town objectives;

· to enhance and raise the visual pro®le of locally recognized or perceived areas;· to identify areas or parts of areas of the towns where different styles and forms of

development were most appropriate.

Following the setting of the goal and aims, Doe established objectives for each town.The town objectives became the starting point of a more detailed policy base designed






to shape the new development in the residential areas. This led on to the creation of speci®c policies for each design area. The town objectives had particular reference valuein interpreting the area policies for use in the decision-making process. He drafted them®rst through a desktop exercise using local knowledge of the towns, their constituentareas and the established local plan policy approach (Dacorum, 1995a). He then revised

them in the light of the survey work to correct and develop them as necessary.

Generation of Character Areas

Following the establishment of the study parameters, Doe developed a policy frameworkso that development in areas of similar character could be controlled effectively. Hemodi®ed the design area approach somewhat in applying it to the Dacorum context.Although the consultation draft referred to `design areas’, by the time of its adoption assupplementary guidance they were being termed `character areas’. Working within thescope of the overall study objectives, the character areas provided the level at which

policies for controlling development in residential areas would be implemented andwere central to the operation of the area policy statements.

Prior to deciding where and how the character areas should be drawn, he drew up alist of characteristics to be investigated as part of the survey and character appraisal. Thiswas concerned principally with urban design factors, but also (and this was important)with how an area was perceived in terms of its neighbourhood qualities. These factorswere seen as the principal in¯uences on overall area character at a general or `broad

brush’ level.Urban design qualities:

· layout and density;· form, age, type and design of buildings, degree of continuity and spacing between

them;· incidence of spaces both open land and amenity areas;· provision of landscaping and planting; views and vistas;· presence and type of non-residential buildings;· car parking provision and traf®c ¯ows.

Neighbourhood qualities:

· local perception of areas;· focal points;· landmarks;· important edges.

Doe used these factors in an initial desktop exercise to devise preliminary characterareas in all three towns prior to survey work being carried out on the ground. Heassembled parts of the towns possessing similar qualities into a series of contiguousgroups to form character areas. These were shown on a standard Ordnance Survey1:10 000 scale base map to provide visual representation of how each town could beanalyzed in terms of character areas. Prior to the start of survey work, a short writtendescription was made of each area based on the above factors and making use of localknowledge. From this background preparation, he created a preliminary picture of howthe towns consisted of residential areas of differing characters, and what the characterand features of each area were. A survey of the three towns was then made to test theassumptions and local knowledge and make modi®cations where necessary. In all, 58





Survey results

Area character

leads to appraisal and definition of

helps to define

Goal and aims

helps to define

Town objectives

results in decision to

Improve characterChange character Maintain character

Policy approach

for each design area

produces


Figure 1. Policy formulation process: creating policy approaches.

character areas were originally identi®ed, with 29 in Hemel Hempstead, 17 in Berkham-sted and 12 in Tring.

Policy Formulation

For the creation of policies, Doe drew mainly on the results of the survey work, and thestudy objectives, but was limited by the practicalities of implementation and legal

constraints. The policy formulation process he adopted is shown in diagrammatic form by Figures 1 and 2. The ®rst step was to consider an overall policy approach for each area(see Table 1). The development of an area’s policy approach can be traced through the¯ow chart. It derived primarily from the consideration of area character arising from thearea character appraisals, but also took into account the study objectives, i.e. the goal, aimsand town objectives. The de®nition of character provided an assessment of thosephysical and neighbourhood qualities that it may be desirable to maintain or change insome way. These qualities had to be considered against the study and town objectivesthat guide the overall direction of policy.

With a policy approach in place, Doe worked up detailed, individual policies forhandling proposals for change. This process is shown by the ¯ow chart, Figure 2. Themain forms of development and change within residential areas are listed in Table 1.Each of these `development forms’ can be run through the policy formulation process onthe ¯ow chart in Figure 2. These main forms can usefully be structured in terms of a`hierarchy of the built environment’ consisting of three levels:








Table 1. Development forms: hierarchy of the built environment

Level 1ÐLayouta. Structure· Green®eld development· Comprehensive redevelopment· Road network· Structural open land

b. Changes to structure· Plot amalgamation· Backland development· Plot separation and density· In®ll development

Level 2ÐArea morphology (within layout structure)· Substantial extensions to buildings· Buildings within curtilages· Garage blocks

· Communal parking areas· Amenity spaces/play areas· Garden sizes· Conversions of buildings to ¯ats· Provision of non-residential buildings· Provision of public landscaping· Pedestrian network and footways· Traf®c ¯ow

Level 3ÐDetail (within plot)· Minor extensions to buildings· Building design features· Crossovers· Provision of private landscaping· Private parking/hardstandings and forecourts

public landscaping. Components of area morphology add shape and detail to the arealayout, but do not radically change or alter it.

Level 3

This contains the area’s detailed features. These are essentially changes within plots,representing the lowest level of change within the hierarchy. Generally, they constituteadditions to mainly morphological components, such as architectural detailing, privateplanting, landscaping and parking provision within the curtilage of dwellings. Clearlythere is some overlap between these categories, but the distinctions established by thehierarchy form a useful structuring method for the purposes of policy formulation.

Each policy statement was arranged in a similar way, with the speci®c principles toguide new development divided into three parts. The ®rst, scope for residential develop-ment, provided a basic introduction setting out policy towards the different forms of newdevelopment, i.e. green®eld, redevelopment, plot amalgamation and in®lling. Speci®cpolicy guidance was then provided in the second part, development principles. All formsof development that take place in residential areas, including those found under levels2 and 3 of the hierarchy of the built environment (see Table 1) could be judged againstthese. Third, development within the plot provided policy guidance for smaller-scaleproposals but within the curtilage of individual plots.






Doe considered the effect of the forms of change against area character by examiningeach one from the three levels in the built environment hierarchy. To assess whether theform of change was desirable or appropriate, it was measured against the study’s goaland aims, town objectives and the policy approach. Depending on the answer to thisquestion, he selected one of three broad options for policy formulation. These were

whether changes should be encouraged, prevented or controlled. If the change wasdesirable or appropriate, then the policy should either encourage or if necessary controlit in some way. Likewise, if an aspect of change was undesirable or inappropriate thenit should be prevented or controlled.

These options were then tested in the policy formulation process. The ®rst test, of legitimacy, encompassed issues such as whether a policy arising from the selected optionwas legally acceptable, in accord with established policy at all other levels and was likelyto be politically acceptable. (Political views, including those of the community at largehad a valuable input to the study at the consultation stage. This part of the policyprocess allowed for such views to be expressed.) Second, he considered practicality. Was

the selected option achievable? Could it be realistically implemented? Could a policyarising from it be easily understood? Where the option was judged to be unacceptable,the process of option selection began again until one was selected that possessedlegitimacy and practicality. If all the options failed these tests, then the creation of policy

became impossible and consequently no policy was introduced concerning the particularform of environmental change under consideration. Additionally, a particular compo-nent of character may have been absent from, or not judged important, in an area. In

both these cases, he made no particular or special requirements relating to that particularform of change.

Design and Character Areas Compared

Doe’s approach to policy formulation by character area possessed some differences fromHall’s original design area approach on which it was based. These were:

· the study applied only to residential areas;· advisory information was not included;· alternative objectives were not proposed or discussed;· objectives were not labelled as such;

· the character area boundaries sometimes followed road lines;· roads were seldom identi®ed as character areas;· no urban design philosophy was made explicit.

Of these, two were the more signi®cant. One was that the study was concerned onlywith residential land-use. The other was the treatment of alternative objectives. In hiscase study of Chelmsford, Hall’s notional design areas were selected on the basis of theareas possessing of `similar characteristics’ and having the `same alternatives’ in respectof how policy or objectives could guide new development. His selection process was

broadly similar to the Dacorum study, although all forms of land use in the Chelmsfordcase study were covered, whereas in Dacorum the study extended only to residentialareas. Hall then set out main objectives for policy in design areas. One example was ªtheneed to retain and conserve all items of architectural and landscape heritageº, whichagain has parallels with the individual approach to policy advocated in each characterarea in Dacorum. However, for each design area Hall suggests a range of alternative






objectives from which to generate area policies; this was where the Dacorum studydiffers. In the Dacorum study, it was considered uneconomic, and at its preparationstage, unnecessary to create a range of alternatives for each of the 64 de®ned characterareas. The extensive and detailed survey work provides a ®rm base on which to justifythe appraisals of area character. To successfully implement the area-based policies this

was of considerable importance. Consequently, on the basis of the survey work andde®nition of area character, the study proposed one particular approach and detailedpolicy for each character area. This was based on the formulation process explainedabove. Doe took the view that the study, containing all its objectives and policies, had

been fully open to public consultation, where alternative approaches and viewpointsarose and could be considered and tested against the study methodology. In this way,public consultation was a valuable, important and inherent part of the study, as thepolicies created would in effect become a series of local political decisions concerninghow new development should proceed in the residential areas of the Borough’s threetowns.

Doe also saw the character area concept as a vehicle for raising the pro®le of thosecharacter-based factors that went towards creating local identity. Although the studywas concerned with the physical improvement of the built environment, changes to theappearance and, moreover, character of an area or town have an important consequentsocial dimension. This largely arose from a person’s sense of place which comes fromtheir physical as well as social surroundings, contained within the community to whichthey belong. Improvements to area character should improve local perception of thatarea. This would hopefully raise and consolidate local area identity. Widespread use of the area policies in this way should help the general public to understand, support, andhave greater con®dence in the development control decisions that the Council makes.Where possible, the character areas were created to re¯ect the way an area wasperceived locally, in terms of its own identity. The formulation of policy therefore, at thisvery localized level, became the Council’s particular approach towards each characterarea to re¯ect local as well as Borough-wide character. The policy statements provideda pre-stated agenda for the control of new development, arrived at through organizedresearch and consultation.

Northchurch: An Example of a Character Area

The arrangement of character areas for Berkhamsted is shown by Figure 3. Northchurch,although once a village in its own right, is now effectively part of the wider urban areaof Berkhamsted. Together, they have a combined population of about 19 000. Bothsettlements grew up on the valley ¯oor of the River Bulbourne and are linear in layout.There is a 19th century core to Northchurch, which has been designated as conservationarea for many years. The settlement experienced major expansion in the inter-war periodwhen an almost gridiron like series of residential streets was built and dwellings sprangup. This more modern part of Northchurch was identi®ed as a separate Character Area(number 19 in Figure 3) from the very outset of the study, given its distinctivenesscompared to the 19th century and earlier core (the boundary can be seen from the mapin Figure 3). The Northchurch Character Area is typical of inter-war layouts in that itattempts to replicate the suburban ideal of detached and semi-detached houses in

bungalows sitting in generous plots, but following, on the whole, strict building lineswith dwellings facing onto the public road (see Figure 4). There is evidence of strong1930s and 1940s design characteristics, but the strength of design uniformity or `code’






has been diluted over the years through in®lling from all decades onwards sincethe inter-war period. The character appraisal and policy statement are reproduced inTable 2.

The Use of the Study in Planning ControlOnce the discussion version of the study (Dacorum, 1995b) was published it became areference tool for the Council’s development control of®cers. It enabled them to providetechnical evidence and back-up to the arguments they advanced on development inresidential areas (Doe, 1997). What was remarkable was how few major tests the policyencountered. The study could be seen as largely restrictive in scope (see Table 3) withfew Character Areas offering signi®cant scope for redevelopment. Observers might haveexpected numerous challenges through the appeal process from frustrated developers. Inthe event, there were few.

An example from the Northchurch Character Area can be used to illustrate the effectof the policies. The extensive size of some of the plots within the Northchurch CharacterArea has made them attractive candidates for not only in®lling but also redevelopmentthrough plot amalgamation. The case in question concerned the assembly of two plotswith detached dwellings to create a rectangular-shaped site extending backwards,lengthways from the road. The initial planning application, by a volume housebuilder,comprised a development of detached dwellings based on a longitudinal cul-de-sac. Thelayout featured one house fronting onto the road, a short line of houses behind andperpendicular to it, and a small group at the foot of the cul-de-sac. It complied with mostrequirements of the Character Area policy, except for one key criterion, which rendered

it seriously out of character, that of density. Policy advice to development control caseof®cers was to refuse the proposal on grounds of the serious impact the extent of development proposed would have on the character of the area. This advice wasgrounded in the area character appraisal and policy from the study document. Theapplication was refused; an appeal was lodged which was in turn dismissed on thisground. Subsequently, a revised scheme was prepared by the housebuilder that com-plied with the density range within the policy. The application was approved.

The conclusion that should be drawn is that positive policy-led planning is not aproblem for developers; it is its absence that causes problems. If they know the policyin advance the price of land will re¯ect its effects. If the policy is restrictive then it is thelandowner that suffers rather than the developer. It is the way of avoiding `planning byappeal’. An additional reason may be that the potential robustness of policies basedupon close reasoning and survey material can be a deterrent to challenge. Moresigni®cantly, no decision based upon the Character Area approach has been overturnedthrough the appeal process.

The Revision of the Study

The discussion draft of the study (Dacorum, 1995b) was issued for public consultationin 1996. The responses received resulted in amendments being made to policy and thecreation of 12 new Character AreasÐa net gain of 10 Character Areas where larger areaswere replaced by subdivisions. The views of local people on description and approachwere taken very seriously. This local knowledge was used to hone the de®nition of àreacharacter’. This was particularly the case in Tring, where one large amorphous `central’






Character Area was divided into seven separate Character Areas following local repre-sentations, particularly from the Town Council.

The local plan (Dacorum, 1995a) was under review at this time. The issue was one of accommodating structure plan housing targets (Hertfordshire, 1998) where new housingwas to be located and allowing for sensible use of urban land for housing without

leading to sporadic and unco-ordinated town cramming. There was a need to optimizethe use of urban land. It was clear to the Council’s of®cers that accommodation of thestructure plan target of 7200 houses over the period 1991±2011 in Dacorum would not

be possible without revisions to Metropolitan Green Belt boundaries. One clear reasonwas the lack of extensive areas of brown®eld land within Hemel Hempstead. Maximiz-ing the level of development from urban in®ll sites in a planned way was, therefore,crucial in limiting the amount of land to be taken from the green belt.

Doe carried out a review of the Character Areas to categorize them in terms of the rolethey had to play in delivering new dwellings. This review was informed by the work of Chesterton and Urban Initiatives (1995) on the `planned regeneration’ of Hertfordshire

Towns. This study was commissioned by Hertfordshire County Council and the 10Hertfordshire Borough and District Councils, as part of review work on the Hertford-shire structure plan review. Its remit was to explore the possibilities of delivering newhousing in the County’s towns through `planned regeneration’. It focused on theopportunities that might arise from further development or redevelopment of residentialareas, as opposed to the `recycling’ of industrial land for housing. Some of the ®ndingsdid inform the structure plan process in the context of the quantum of strategic landreleases. It showed that, if the sort of levels of housing that the Consultants wereproposing might be achieved, a local planning authority would have to abandontraditional mechanical approaches to control through density and back garden lengthsand private amenity space standards. Their argument supported the more sophisticatedarea based approach embodied in the Character Study. It also suggested that it shouldadopt a more dynamic approach to facilitating development.

Testing of the ®ndings by Doe resulted in the introduction of a descriptive `model’ of residential area types. One of the four categories listed below was inserted under the`Scope for Residential Development’ heading in the policy statement for each CharacterArea:

· minimal changeÐusually comprehensively planned (and thus more modern) areas;·very limited opportunityÐwhere there are occasional gap sites for in®lling but no plotamalgamation opportunities;·limited opportunityÐsome gap sites, some potential for plot amalgamation;·opportunityÐnot a `free-for-all’ but least constrained; opportunities for in®lling, plotamalgamation and redevelopment, or, sometimes, where change of character is deemedappropriate.

The Northchurch Character Area was described as `limited opportunity’. The revisedstudy was adopted as supplementary planning guidance in February 1998 (Dacorum,1998a) and became a de®nite material consideration in the planning process.

The Incorporation of the Study into the Local Plan

From the beginning of work on the study, there had been a long-term intention toincorporate it in the local development plan. The potential dif®culty was that thenational government had been resistant to incorporating detailed design provisions into



D o w n

l o a

d e

d B y :

[ U n

i v e r s

i t y o

f S y

d n e y

] A t :

1 2 : 0

3 1 4 J u n e

2 0 0 7


Figure 3. The Character Areas for Berkhamsted. Source: Reproduced from the Ordance Survey Map by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,

Ó Crown Copyright MC 0100033125.



D o w n

l o a

d e

d B y :

[ U n

i v e r s

i t y o

f S y

d n e y

] A t :

1 2 : 0

3 1 4 J u n e

2 0 0 7


Figure 3. Continued.






Table 2. The Northchurch character area appraisal and policy statement

A residential area of medium sized dwellings set in a mainly ordered, formal layout with regular spacing and building lines with both suburban and semi-rural qualities.

HousingAge: Most development is from the 1940s and early 1950s which provides the area with a

strong identity. There are examples of in®ll development from this period onwards.Older development from earlier 20th century periods is found in the north-westernpart of the area.

Design: The core of 1940s and 1950s dwellings broadly found in the south-eastern part of thearea provides it with strong design identity. Here, the style of buildings is simple,although the use of plain, uniform brickwork on most dwellings is alleviated in part

by angled front bays and front tile hanging. Design styles are often repeated alongroads. Within the north-western part, around Ashby Road, Home Farm Road, DellRoad, Birch Road, Lyme Avenue and Tring Road, designs and ages are more varied.

Type: Two-storey detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows are most common,although there are some two-storey ¯ats at and close to the local centre. `The Limit’mobile home park is situated at the north-western end of Covert Road.

Height: Up to two storeys; high incidence of bung alows.

Size: Mainly medium sized dwellings. Some large houses present, particularly along theHigh Street in the northern part of the area.

Layout: Mainly formal. The core of 1940s/1950s development is based on a series of parallelroads with buildings following strong building lines. This pattern extends to most of the area, although layout in Tring Road, Birch Road, Dell Road, Home Farm Road andAshby Road is more informal in nature. Spacing is largely regular between dwellingsor pairs or groups of dwellings, towards the higher end of the medium range (2 m to5 m). Siting of dwellings is conventional with gardens front and rear, and the dwellingfacing onto the road. The area is given a wide, open feel mainly through dwellings

being set well back from the road and by roadside verge planting.

Density: Low, at around 15 dwellings/ha.

AmenityOpen space: None within the area. The area lies adjacent to open countryside in the Green Belt on

its south-western side. Rear gardens of dwellings back on to the countryside, helpingto provide a soft edge to the Green Belt.

Amenity land: Grassed and planted roadside verges are common. These contribute to a generallywide, open àvenue’ feel to certain roads in the area.

Front gardens Generally wellset backfrom the road.Enclosureby low walling andplanting common.and forecourts:

Landscaping and Generally good provision of public landscaping aided by planted roadside verges.

planting: There is a strong established belt of trees between the area and the A4251 High Street.Views and vistas: Long perspective views obtainable along the High Street, Peter’s Place, Covert Road

and St Mary’s Avenue.

Landmarks and Small local centre in the High Street acts as a focal point to the area, and to the wholefocal points: of Northchurch as a community.

Traf®cOn-street parking: Generally moderate.

Off-street parking: Mostly provided through individual spaces within private curtilages.

Through routes Limited to the A4251 and Darrs Lane.and ¯ows:

Non-residential buildingsShops at the local centre in the High Street.

Policy statementApproach: Maintai n de®ned character .






Scope for Residential Development

Area of Limited OpportunityGreen®eld development: No opportunities.

Redevelopment: May be acceptable on certain sites where the Development Principles are satis®ed.

Plot amalgamation: Opportunities limited.

In®lling: Opportunities limited .

Conversion of dwellings May be acceptable.into smaller units:

Development Principles

HousingDesign: In parts of the area where there is a clear repetition of design styles of dwellings from

the 1940s/1950s period, the use of architectural themes and details on those buildingsis strongly encouraged in new development. In particular, the use of angled front baysand tile hanging is encouraged. Also, the roof style should follow that of nearby andadjacent dwellings. Elsewhere, there are no special design requirements.

Type: Detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows are acceptable, except for ¯ats

and terraces which are not appropriate and will not be permitted.Height: Should not exceed two storeys.

Size: Medium sized dwellings are appropriate and are encouraged.

Layout: The existinglayout patternshould be followed.Regularspacingshould bemaintained,within the medium range (2 m to 5 m). The prevalent building line should be followed.Dwellings should front the highway with gardens to the front and rear.

Density: Should not exceed 15 dwellings/ha.

AmenityAmenity land: Existing roadside verges should be retained and enhanced.

Front gardens and Front areas should be provided at a size, depth and layout common to those of nearbyforecourts: and adjacent plots. Enclosure of front areas is acceptable.

Landscaping and Further provision throughout is encouraged. Proposals for new development shouldplanting: enhance and where appropriate supplement the existing provision of landscaping. A

soft, landscaped edge to the Green Belt should be maintained and enhanced and wherenecessary, provided.

Views and vistas: Perspective views along the High Street, Peter’s Place, Covert Road and St Mary’sAvenue should be maintained.

Landmarks and focal Local centre in the High Street should be retained as a focal point.points:

Traf®cOn-street parking: No special requirements.

Off-street parking: Should normally be provided within individual private curtilages.

Through routes and New access links to the A4251 are discouraged.¯ows:

Non-residential buildingsShops at the local centre in the High Street should be retained.

Development within the plotExtensions: Should normally be subordinate to the parent building in terms of scale and height.

Detail: No special requirements.Curtilage buildings: Should not normally be sited forward of the front wall of a dwelling which fronts a

highway.

Means of enclosure: No special requirements.

Private landscaping: Encouraged throughout.






Figure 4. Part of the Northchurch CharacterArea showing the typical form of bunga-

lows with hipped roofs. Source: Photograph, James Doe.

Table 3. Character Areas by policy type

HemelHempstead Berkhamsted Tring

Character to be maintained or improved 27 16 11Character to be maintained or improved 6 1 1

with opportunities of localized change

Changes to character proposed or allowed 1 1 ÐTotal 34 18 12

local plans, de®nitely so during the 1980s. Although at the beginning of the 1990s thegovernment had moved away from the more market-led policies of the 1980s to aplan-led situation, it still discouraged plans that were in any way detailed, complex andprescriptive, especially with regard to design (Punter & Carmona, 1997). Some localplanning authorities had experimented with isolated examples of residential character

areas. They did not approach the scale and systematic nature of the Dacorum study but,nevertheless, they had dif®culty getting their much more modest proposals through apublic enquiry (Hall, 1996). One, Redbridge, in 1995, adopted them against the inspec-tor’s recommendation. The experience in Dacorum a few years later was completelydifferent.

The Character Appraisals and Policy Statements were worked into the deposit draft of the local plan (Dacorum, 1998b). They were included in a separate volume to the mainwritten statement but subject to the same exposure as the rest of the Plan. The depositperiod was from December 1998 to January 1999. The objections received were mainlyfrom residents objecting either to the description of the area’s features or character or tothe identi®cation of their residential area as one of development òpportunity’. Therewas no objection from developers as might have been expected. The GovernmentRegional Of®ce did not object. The policies are now used by the Council’s developmentcontrol of®cers and referred to in Committee reports on applications for planningpermission. Again, surprisingly and signi®cantly, there has been no real test case to date.






Conclusion

The primary lesson to be drawn from the experience of Dacorum Borough Council isthat producing a local development plan incorporating area-speci®c policies to controlphysical form is a feasible endeavour. A systematic method was devised and has now

been clearly set out for others to follow. It proved possible for a typical district council

in south-east England to undertake the work within its usual resources. There were fewobjections made during public consultation and, remarkably, almost none from develop-ers. It has now been used effectively in planning control with few challenges through theappeal process, none successful. The incorporation of the Character Area approach intoa statutory development plan was not challenged by the central government. From oneperspective, this shows how much planning in Britain has changed over the last 10 years.It is dif®cult to envisage the same level of government approval during the 1980s.Arguments are often advanced that plans should be simpler but in Dacorum a morecomplex and detailed form of plan has been produced and is being used. It is too early

to judge the effect of this plan on the physical environment but on the evidencepresented here the reader may predict the likely outcome.Although produced in response to the paucity of design control policies and method

in British practice, both the design area approach and the Dacorum Residential AreaCharacter Study have provided useful material on which to base innovations in othercountries. What is necessary everywhere are plans that go beyond land-use zoning andaddress the control of urban form directly.

References

Chesterton and Urban Initiatives (1995) Hertfordshire Dwelling Provision through Planned Regeneration (London,Chesterton Consulting).

Dacorum Borough Council (1984) District Plan (Dacorum BC, Hemel Hempstead).Dacorum Borough Council (1995a) Dacorum Borough Local Plan (Dacorum BC, Hemel Hempstead).

Dacorum Borough Council (1995b) Residential Area Character Study, Discussion Draft (Dacorum BC, HemelHempstead).

Dacorum Borough Council (1998a) Supplementary Planning Guidance on Development in Residential Area (Daco-rum BC, Hemel Hempstead).

Dacorum Borough Council (1998b) Dacorum Borough Local Plan First Review to 2011 Deposit Draft (Dacorum BC,Hemel Hempstead).

Doe, J.R. (1997) The Dacorum Residential Areas Character approach, Urban Design Quarterly, 62, pp. 24±27.

Farthing, S. (1999) Land-use plans and the implementation of new urban development: a comparative study . Paperdelivered to Planning Futures: the Future of Planning, University of Shef®eld, March.

Habe, R. (1989) Public design control in American communities: design guidelines/design review, Town

Planning Review, 60(2), pp. 195±219.Hall, A.C. (1990a) Generation of Objectives for Design Control (Chelmsford, Anglia College Enterprises).

Hall, A.C. (1990b) Generating design objectives for local areas: a methodology and case study application toChelmsford, Essex, Town Planning Review, 61(3), pp. 287±309.

Hall, A.C. (1990c) Design controlÐa call for a new approach, The Planner, 76(39), pp. 14±18.Hall, A. C. (1996) Design Control: Towards a New Approach (Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann).

Hall, A.C. (1997) Dealing with incremental change: an application of urban morphology to design control, Journal of Urban Design, 2(3), pp. 221±239.

Hertfordshire County Council (1998) Hertfordshire County Structure Plan Review 1991±2011 (Hertfordshire CC,Hertford).

Kreiger, A. & Lennertz, W. (1992) Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk: Town and Town Making Principles,Harvard Graduate School of Design (New York, Rizzoli).

Kropf, K. (1996) An alternative approach to zoning in France: typology, historical character and developmentcontrol, European Planning Studies, 4(6), pp. 717±737.

Punter, J. & Carmona, M. (1997) The Design Dimension of Planning (London, E. & F. N. Spon).Punter, J. (1997) West coast cities of the USA, Urban Design Quarterly, 63, pp. 34±37.






Punter, J. (1999) The Vancouver experience, Urban Design Quarterly, 70, pp. 33±37.Samuels, I. (1993) The plan d’occupation des sols for AsnieÁres sur Oise, in: R. Hayward & S. McGlynn (Eds)

Making Better PlacesÐUrban Design Now (Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann).Trache, H. (1999) Promoting urban design in development plans: typo-morphological approaches in Montreuil,

France. Paper delivered to Planning Futures: the Future of Planning, University of Shef®eld, March.Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance (London, Routledge).Wakeford, R. (1990) American Development Control (London, HMSO).

Documents

Design Control Policies for Small Areas