Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2011, volume 29, pages 502 ^ 519

doi:10.1068/c1029

The role of planning in housing design: design implications

of land-use management

Harry Smith
School of the Built Environment, Sir Edwin Chadwick Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh EH14 4AS, Scotland; e-mail: h.c.smith@hw.ac.uk
Soledad Garcia Ferrari
Edinburgh College of Art, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9DF, Scotland;
e-mail: s.garcia@eca.ac.uk
Paul Jenkins
School of the Built Environment, Sir William Arrol Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh EH14 4AS, Scotland and Edinburgh College of Art, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh
EH3 9DF, Scotland; e-mail: p.jenkins@hw.ac.uk
Received 2 February 2010; in revised form 14 December 2010

Abstract. On the basis of findings from a recent project looking at the status of design in the private
sector house-building industry in Scotland, commissioned by the Scottish Government, we explore
connections between housing design and wider planning department responsibilities including land-
use planning and management. We conclude that a broad conception of design is required in order
to understand the influences that land-use planning and management have on approaches that house-
builders have to housing design, as well as on the outcomes. We consider the current drive to
strengthen design skills in planning departmentsöincluding in relation to housing design issues ö
and argue that, in addition to this, a more widely embedded understanding of the design implications
of land-use planning and management decisions on the housing development process is needed in
order to contribute to optimising conditions for good design.

Introduction
Planning has been seen as having a major role in driving improvement in the design of
new housing (CABE, 2001; Callcutt Review, 2007; Carmona, 1999; Carmona et al, 2003;
Higgins and Forsyth, 2006), and in this regard there have been calls for upgrading
design skills within planning offices and making policy advice and design guidelines
available to designers and developers (CABE, 2003; Higgins et al, 2007; Urban Design
Skills Working Group, 2001). On the other hand, planning has been blamed for con-
tributing to shortfalls in housing supply through its strict control of land release for
housing, as well as protracted and complex planning approval processes (Barker, 2004;
OFT, 2008), now including design issues as material considerations. Criticism of planning
in its management of land for new housing is principally related to quantitative issues
such as rates of housing supply and land coverage by residential development, especially
loss of greenfield land. However, links between land-use management and design quality
of housing have also come to the fore in analyses of connections between the current
policy drive to increase brownfield land development for housing and mixed use and the
design approaches taken by developers (Adams, 2004; Tiesdell and Adams, 2004).
We explore the implications of land-use planning and management for housing
design more widely, looking at both greenfield and brownfield land. In the light of
the above calls we examine the issue of the nature of skills that planning departments
are expected to draw on, proposing a broader view that considers design and land-use
management not as separate and independent activities but as interlinked. The implica-
tions are that, although strengthening of design skills per se in planning departments
may also be needed, planners especially need to be aware of the design implications
The role of planning in housing design 503

of how land for development is identified and managed throughout the development,
planning, and management processes. This reflects frequent calls for planners to be
more aware of development economics and how the development business operates
(eg Lee, 2003; Thomas, 2008)öa view commonly found among developers (Carmona
et al, 2003). This tends to be seen in terms of understanding the economic impacts of
planning decisions and delays in processing of planning applications, with much less
being written about the need to understand the role of design within the development
process of housebuilders and its relationship with land-use management.
The empirical base we draw on is the `Design at the Heart of Housebuilding' (DHHB)
research project, commissioned in 2006 by the Scottish Government's Architectural Policy
Unit, and published in 2008. The research aimed to ``contribute to the understanding of
how processes of housing development influence the design of the final product'', includ-
ing identifying constraints which inhibit policy objectives being met by private housing
developers, and processes and structures which overcome such constraints (Scottish
Government, 2007, page 10). The stated objectives of the research were to:
. explore whether there is a clear vision and understanding of design and design
policy amongst the key stakeholders;
. understand issues surrounding skills and training in design in house-building
organisations;
. identify examples of good practice where house builders have overcome barriers
and successfully placed design at the heart of their house-building programme; and
. disseminate such examples of good practice within the house-building industry
to further promote the value of design more effectively, so that house building in
Scotland would become a design-led activity. (1)
The project was implemented in three phases, based on three different commissioned
research methods.(2) Phase 1 was a precoded questionnaire e-mail survey to cover as many
Scottish private sector house builders as possible, in order to provide an overview of the
sector's operation and the role of design within this.(3) Phase 2 was based on semistruc-
tured interviews with senior management and design staff of a sample of the responding
firms, to investigate initial findings in more depth and identify possible case studies.(4)
(1) The research focused primarily on development processes, but also reflects the impact of this on

housing products through the case studies.

(2) The research was implemented between October 2006 and September 2007 by a winning consor-

tium of Scottish Higher Education Institutions: School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt
University, in association with Architecture at Edinburgh University and the School of Architecture
at Edinburgh College of Art.
(3) Phase 1 involved sending the e-mail survey to a hundred Homes for Scotland members, plus six

other developers identified as important nationally or regionally. Homes for Scotland maintain
records of 90% of house builders in Scotland, responsible for some 95% of all private sector housing
completions. The survey had a total of twenty-seven returnsöthat is, a response rate from devel-
opers contacted representing 37% of all private sector house completions across Scotland in 2005/
06. This and the detailed nature of their response was considered fully representative of the sector's
operations overall by the research advisory group, and hence a firm foundation for phases 2 and 3.
(4) The sample for the twenty-four interviews in phase 2 sought a proportionate representation of

types of firms across an agreed set of criteria drawing on phase 1 responses and based on: firm
type (size in terms of output, headquarter (HQ) location, and market segment); location of most of
the firm's development; and the firm's declared approach to design. The selection met the criteria
as follows: nineteen with HQs in Scotland and five in England; five producing fewer than a
hundred units per year, eight with 100 ^ 199 per year, six with 200 ^ 499 per year, and five with
500 or over per year; three firms focusing on starter homes, fourteen on midmarket homes, and
seven on executive homes; eighteen with production activity focused in Scotland's central belt
and six outwith this (reflecting the distribution of population in Scotland); a proportionate range
of firms responding on the importance of design; a proportionate number of firms with in-house
architecture skills or alternatives; and a range of firms with design awards.
504 H Smith, S Garcia Ferrari, P Jenkins

Phase 3 was based on the analysis and description of case studies of good practice
vis-a©-vis design in the development process, highlighting the impact of this on the final
housing product.(5)
The study produced a wealth of information across a wide range of aspects of
relevance, some of which has been written up and presented elsewhere.(6) With this
paper we focus in particular on the link between planning and housing design, drawing
on phases 1 and 2 of the research. We first provide a context for the issues explored
here through a brief review of the literature on the house-building industry in the UK,
with a particular focus on the constraints upon, and attitudes to, good housing design.
Building on this background, we review notions of design as stated in Scottish
planning guidance, contrasting this to the perceptions evidenced by developers
during the DHHB project. We then focus on the process of achieving good design,
first focusing on the role of planners through a comparison of recent literature on
planning skills that have a focus on design with view of planning departments and
related bodies as expressed by house builders; we then examine the role of design
within the house production process, as understood by house builders in the DHHB
project, looking at both greenfield and brownfield sites. This provides the basis of a
comparison of this research with previous analyses focusing on the issue of land (Adams,
2004; Tiesdell and Adams, 2004), and illustrating this with some examples from the
DHHB project and from international experience. Finally, we return to the issue of
skills in planning departments, arguing for more in-depth understanding by planners
of the parameters that are set for house builders in the way in which land is released
for housing and by how planning applications for housing are evaluated.

Housing design in the UK

Housing in the UK has been criticised for its poor quality and record in innovation
(Ball, 1999; Barlow, 1999; Carmona et al, 2003). The private house-building industry
has become overwhelmingly the main housing provider since the mid-1980s, including
for the social sector (Callcutt Review, 2007). The impact on housing quality of the
structure of the private house-building sector, which has undergone increasing concen-
tration in the last few decades (Nicol and Hooper, 1999), has been considered in several
studies of its mode of operation. A key factor has been identified as the ``business
strategy focused on capturing inflationary gains from housing and land markets''
(Barlow, 1999, page 23) rather than on the quality of the productöparticularly before
the 1990s, when the increasing emphasis on developing brownfield land reduced the
scope for this strategy. Related to this and to other structural factors, Ball (1999) and
Barlow (1999) identified a conservative approach to innovation in the UK house-
building industry, with the former arguing that this is linked to the characteristics of
the different markets in which it operates (housing, land, labour, materials, and plant
and equipment). Ball's (1999, page 11) policy conclusion was that ``the state has more
reason to intervene into housebuilding innovation than in many other industries.''
In addition, Ball suggested that structural factors are not the only constraint on higher
innovation, but firm behaviour also matters.

(5) Homes for Scotland, the apex organisation for the majority of Scottish private sector housing

developers and builders, played an important role in supporting the research, and Architecture
and Design Scotland was also part of an advisory group, with the research consortium consult-
ing a wider sectoral reference group during the research period ö to which a range of relevant
organisations from the public and private sectors were invited.
(6) The full report can be found at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/08110758/0.

Another publication resulting from this research is Jenkins and MacLachlan (2010).
The role of planning in housing design 505

A key driver behind the private sector house-building process is the balance
between risk and reward, with maximisation of certainty being sought (Carmona
et al, 2003). This explains the use of standard units, which reduce uncertainty through
allowing quick estimation of residual value of land at the time of making an offer on
a site, estimation of costs and production time at short notice, higher control over
construction process risk and cost, and lower design costs (Carmona et al, 2003;
Hooper and Nicol, 1999). Hooper and Nicol's research established that house builders
saw the building's `footprint' as the most essential characteristic of a standard house
type, includingöfor most house builders öthe internal layout. External variations
(also standardised) are then offered for each of the standardised house-type footprints.
Though research showed most firms increasing their range of standard portfolios in
the 1990s, it also showed trends towards `rationalisation' of standard house types ö
for example, following acquisition of other companies (Hooper and Nicol, 1999).
The increasing concentration of the house-building industry has therefore contributed
to the criticism that the same house is offered everywhere in the country (Carmona
et al, 2003)ösuch tendency to `homogenisation' also being found in Scotland (Gibb,
1999). In addition to this, design is marginalised by the housing procurement process
because profits are often tight, with design costs usually being less than 1% of total unit
cost (Adam, 1997; Carmona et al, 2003).
Research on housing providers and planners has underpinned Carmona et al's
(2003) identification of six particular issues in the planning process which constitute
areas of `tension': land; delay in the statutory process; discretion in the planning
system; design; extraction of `planning gain' from developers; and coordination among
and within the different stakeholders. These tensions reflect how the planning system
also comes in for criticismöfor example, from house builders ömost commonly
including planning constraints on land release, lack of resources and skills in planning
departments, lack of understanding of the housing markets, and lack of appropriate-
ness and consistency in guidance and decision making (Carmona et al, 2003; Hooper
and Nicol, 1999).
However, the literature also recognises the important role of the planning system
in regulating the quality of housing design (Ball, 1999; Carmona et al, 2003). Hall's
work in Chelmsford showed that an objective-led explicit design policy, developed
at various levels by the local planning authority including briefing and negotiation,
could have a positive impact on commercial and residential design (Hall, 1990; 2007).
Though this experience may not be representative of local authority practice across the
UK (Biddulph, 2008), it is the case that since the 1990s the planning system across the UK
has taken a more prescriptive approach to design, addressing it as a material con-
sideration, putting in place instruments to promote design (Carmona, 1999; Carmona
et al, 2003), and in these promoting an idea of what good design is. A recent develop-
ment in this regard has been the Callcutt Review's (2007) recommendation that a single
design review process for house building should be make available nationwide (across
England).
The literature notes a shift from the planning system's focus on external design and
highway-dominated layouts (Hooper and Nicol, 1999) to a more urban-design-oriented
approach that draws on new urbanism (Carmona et al, 2003). Good design is pro-
moted via a variety of guidance at levels ranging from local to national (see eg
Llewelyn-Davies, 2000), though conceptions of `good design' in housing as such are not
so common in the academic literature. Carmona et al (2003, page 48) provide a character-
isation of bad design: ``overdevelopment with uniform house types on minimum plots
that ignores site characteristics andöbeyond what sellsölocal housing requirements.''
506 H Smith, S Garcia Ferrari, P Jenkins

Hooper and Nicol's 1999 research explicitly defines what they mean by `design', focusing
on functionality, structural integrity, aesthetic appeal, and cost-effectivenessöa definition
very much focused on the individual housing unit as a product rather than on housing
as creating a place. On the basis of a range of research, Carmona et al (2003) confirm
the emphasis on the housing unit in house builders' approaches to housing design,
determined by buildability, maximisation of unit amenity, market research, and public
policy and regulations. It has been argued that, with house builders' focus on the
housing unit rather than on the development as a whole being driven by profit maxim-
isation, ``poor design practice is seen as increasing the profitability of development''
(page 120).
This difference in emphasis appears to underpin the tension identified between house
builders and planners, the latter's conceptualisation of housing designöas it appears in
policy and guidanceöcurrently being more rooted in the urban design dimension. This
apparent difference in emphasis in the conceptualisation of housing design was explored
in the DHHB research, which elicited current views on housing design among house
builders operating in Scotland. Next we compare these two approaches to housing
design in the Scottish context.

Defining design: views from planning guidance and house builders in Scotland
As introduced in the previous section, the issue of residential design quality has risen
on the planning agenda in the UK since the mid-1990s, with several design guidance
publications being issued for England and Wales [see Tiesdell and Adams (2004, pages
26 ^ 28) for an overview of this design guidance]. Since its establishment in 1999, the
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)öthe government's
advisory body on architecture, urban design, and public space öhas had an important
role in the preparation and dissemination of such guidance. The house-building
industry has responded through the publication of Building for Life (HBF et al, 2003)
and the establishment of Building for Life assessments and awards in partnership with
CABE and other national agencies.(7)
A similar process has taken place in Scotland, where the (then) Scottish Executive
published A Policy on Architecture for Scotland and a policy statement on urban design
under the title of Designing Places, both in 2001. Both documents highlighted the value
of good design. The former focused on promoting good architectural design in various
ways, including through ensuring that the planning and building standards systems
``both promote and facilitate design quality in development'' (Scottish Executive, 2001a,
page 7). Designing Places was an initial step in this direction for the planning system,
implicitly providing criteria for good design by identifying six qualities of `successful
places': ``identity, safe and pleasant spaces, ease of movement, a sense of welcome,
adaptability and good use of resources'' (Scottish Executive, 2001b, page 10). Good
design was therefore equated to `good place making', as illustrated in one of its few
references to housing: ``The price [of poor design] is paid by people who find them-
selves in newly built suburban housing whose designers gave no thought to the quality
and distinctiveness of the place they were making'' (page 21).
This focus on place making was developed in more detailed planning policy
and guidance relevant to housing published subsequently. SPP3 Planning for Housing
(Scottish Executive, 2003a) identified the issues to be considered in planning for quality
residential environments as: design, layout, and architecture; energy efficiency; form
of development; landscape and open space; density; choice of residential environments;
(7) Building
for Life is a partnership between CABE, the Home Builders Federation, the Civic Trust,
Design for Homes, English Partnerships, and the Housing Corporation (http://www.buildingforlife.org/
about).
The role of planning in housing design 507

and mixed communities. PAN 67 Housing Quality (Scottish Executive, 2003b) adhered to
the six qualities of successful places identified in Designing Places, and listed issues
to consider, grouped under five headings: layout, landscape, scale and mix, details,
and materials and maintenance. In presenting these issues as possibilities rather than
requirements, PAN 67 recognised that ``It is not possible to be prescriptive on design:
good design will not be produced by slavishly following rules, irrespective of place or
context'' (page 14). This statement acknowledges the intractability of defining good
design, as well as the complexity of design of built environments in general, and
housing in particular. However, PAN 67 reveals some degree of prescription based on
an underlying view of what constitutes a successful place öfor example, promoting
mixed use, and diversity in the appearance of houses.(8)
Another argument that guidance has increasingly developed is that achieving good
housing design requires collaborative working by the various stakeholders ö``planners,
architects, house builders, developers or housing associations'' (Scottish Executive,
2003b, page 14). It has become increasingly explicit about the respective roles of stake-
holders, clarifying that the role of planning is to create the conditions that make good
design and successful places more likely (page 5), and putting the responsibility for
meeting quality standards and rasing the profile of design in the housing development
process on developers (Scottish Executive, 2003c), albeit with the assistance of ``skilled
architects and designers'' (Scottish Executive, 2005a, page 19).
A key issue here is the perceptions the different stakeholders may have of what
`meeting quality standards' entails. Planning policy and guidance sets out a place-
making-focused design agenda for housing and puts the onus to deliver this on the
house builders, but how do house builders perceive and prioritise `quality design'? The
DHBB research explored this issue initially in the e-mail survey of house builders in
Scotland. The majority of respondents (fifteen out of twenty-seven) stated that design
was essential to their developments, with the remainder considering it very important
(9) or important (3). However, perceptions of the relative importance of various aspects
of housing design differed. The survey asked developers to rank from most to least
important the following options: internal design; external building design; estate lay-
out; and wider urban design. Interior design and estate layout were each considered
the most important or equal most important aspect of design by the majority of firms,
with wider urban design being considered the most important (or equally so) by the
fewest firms (see figure 1).
To understand why this was the case, developers were asked to select from a list of
precoded potential advantages such as marketing, economics, profitability, the plan-
ning system, and company image, and were also given the opportunity to suggest other
answers. The majority indicated that design added to sale value (twenty-three out of
twenty-seven responses), helped with planning (twenty-three), fitted company objectives
(twenty-three), and improved the company image (twenty-two), with slightly fewer
responding positively concerning making sales easier (twenty) or quicker (fourteen).
However, when the role of design quality was compared with other factors in the house
development process across submarket segments, the value of design achieved a higher
ranking factor for executive homes than midmarket developments, and lower for
starter homes ö with economic considerations dominating all cases. Design quality
in fact featured in the mid-range of important factors although it was declared of
more importance than `kerb appeal' in all types of development, more important than
(8) Other relevant guidance includes PAN 68 Design Statements (2003c), PAN 72 Housing in The
Countryside (2005a), PAN 76 New Residential Streets (2005b), as well as the updated policy, now called
SPP3 Planning for Homes (Scottish Government, 2008). These contributed to develop the perspective
of the planning system on housing design, which is grounded mainly in the notion of place making.
508 H Smith, S Garcia Ferrari, P Jenkins

14

12

10
Number

0
Interior design External design Estate layout Urban design
design
Figure 1. Importance of different aspects of design (total number of responses ˆ 27) (source:
Scottish Government, 2007, page 28).

25
Starter
Mid-range
Executive
20

15

10

0
t

er
y

'

ice
sig of

al
os

n ula
lit

lit

lit

th
pe
tc

pr
a
i

de lity

bi
n
ab

O
sig ac
qu

ap

ta
en

le
de ern
ild

us ua

ke
n

Sa
pm

b
ho vid
Bu

ig

er

ar
lv
es

e
elo

`K

M
di

ca
D

In
ev

Lo
D

Figure 2. Number of developers indicating that an issue was amongst the three most important
issues in their opinion (total number of responses ˆ 27) (source: Scottish Government, 2007,
page 30).

`buildability' in mid-market and executive homes, and more important than sale price
in mid-market homes (see figure 2).
The semistructured interviews in phase 2 of the project permitted clarification of
these design-related issues. Interviewees found it difficult to define design clearly, thus
echoing the lack of explicit definitions found in policy guidance. Design quality was
defined by referring to a wide range of factors, with firms' reputation and customer
perception being key issues as well as specifications and buildability. Regarding the
firm's reputation and customer's perception of quality, design quality associated to a
particular image was seen as important for an established firm to maintain its position
and reputation, with developers stressing the importance of a recognisable product and
design quality consistency helping to establish a brand. Importantly, a few interviewees
equated house design to product design rather than architectural design, and öin
particularödrew parallels with car design. ``Housing is like building a car. It is a
productöthat's how detached it is from architecture.'' This attitude is particularly
The role of planning in housing design 509

evidenced in marketing brochures which focus on named house types, rather than on a
specific house in a specific location and for a specific user.(9)
In the semistructured interviews there was reasonable clarity across developers
about how they defined design quality in terms of internal layouts, external building
design, estate layout, and urban design öissues which are explicitly addressed in the
policy guidance. However, there was considerable difference in the relative importance
of design quality in relation to the firm's reputation and its perception of customer
interests. As in the e-mail survey, interior layout ranked equally with estate layout in
relation to quality. Regarding internal layout, quality was defined in relation to usabil-
ity and to trends related to the organisation of space (open plan, etc). External building
design was ranked as of lower importance in relation to design quality, with a number
of developers speaking of the exterior of houses as interchangeable `jackets', depending
on the quality of specification and materials, how it fits in the location, and attitudes of
planning authorities. Most developers have external jacket ranges, which reflect what
they consider to be `traditional' or `contemporary'.(10)
Estate layout was seen as a complex issue. For the majority it was a question of
balancing the creation of a sense of place with maximising profit, and was thus linked
to land supply, as is discussed later. Though urban design was less often mentioned in
relation to perceptions of design quality, there was some discussion of this jointly with
estate layout. For example, road design was considered to have a strong influence on
possible site layouts, in turn influencing wider urban design. In general, the perception
of urban design appeared to be less clear in house builders' interviews than that of
other factors, ranging from seeing urban design as a `driver' with a wish to create a
sense of community, to a view that was expressed by one interviewee as: ``Urban design
is an add-on. Urban design may reflect what is trendy with architects now, not
necessarily the right design for the right site.'' Interestingly, some developers saw the
policy move towards `home zones' and place making as being linked to higher densities,
which could help increase profitability and therefore allow investment in higher-quality
materials and designöan issue to which we return later. Developers were very aware of
the focus on urban design in recent planning policy and guidance, mostly seen as
showing possible solutions which could influence the achievement of better quality.
However, some house builders regarded the guidance as very loose and lacking in
specific suggestions, and most suggested that more in-depth master plan proposals
could be a key to better urban design. Nevertheless, in general, overly prescriptive
requirements from planning departments were seen as a possible constraint on achieving
better design quality.
Comparison of house builders' perceptions of quality design in housing and the
content of the relevant planning policies and guidance shows (at least) two different
agendas and sets of design priorities. While planning discourse focuses on place
making and contributions to this through housing development, house builders' res-
ponses in the DHHB research denote an emphasis on houses as products linked for
firm `brands' and `lifestyle options' which help their marketing. These agendas are not
necessarily opposed, and in fact there are strong overlaps. For example, house builders
see location as an important factor in driving demand for housing, and therefore its
price and thus their approach to design. Another example is developers' perception
that developments with different types and mixed sizes of houses are more successful in
economic terms, thus echoing PAN 67's call for ``a mix of dwelling sizes and types''
(Scottish Executive, 2003b, page 21). In relation to urban designöplanning policy's

(9) See Jenkins and MacLachlan (2010) for more on this issue.
(10) Again, see Jenkins and MacLachlan (2010).
510 H Smith, S Garcia Ferrari, P Jenkins

main emphasisöinterviewed house builders in general saw this as a regulatory-focused

issue, though some saw the scope for developing marketable lifestyles as being linked to
place making.
Thus, while planning policy and guidance has put the responsibility for delivering
quality housing design on developers (through their engagement of `skilled' professional
designers), house builders in turn (through the DHHB research) highlighted the role of
the planning system in setting clear, specific, and consistent guidance which can be
used at the level of development proposals. In this regard house builders echo PAN 67's
statement that planning can create the conditions that make successful places more
likely but, importantly, they highlight a perceived gap between government suggestions
on design guidance and the skills of planners to recommend specific solutions, to
which we now turn.

Achieving good design: the expected guiding hand of the regulator

So what skills should planners have to fulfil their responsibility of creating the appro-
priate conditions for good design? PAN 67 says very little about this. It refers to: the
positive correlation between the urban character of a local authority and its planning
skills; its planners' experience in preparing urban design frameworks and development
briefs, or in conducting preapplication discussions and negotiating on design issues;
and the requirement of design statements (Scottish Executive, 2003b, page 27). It
identifies architects and urban designers as having partial responsibility for ``getting
the balance right in a particular situation'', with the local authorities having the job of
preparing the ground (page 27). It sees the development plan as needing to describe
how the principles of design should shape development. In addition to this, PAN 67
offers local authorities what it calls an urban design toolkit, which is a list of design
guidance instruments including urban design frameworks, development briefs, master
plans, design guides, design statements, and design competitions. Though PAN 67
states that local authorities will usually lead in preparing such guidance, it also sees
a role for developers in sharing the work or in helping pay for it when councils do not
have the skills or resources. The above is thus indicative of the variability in levels of
desired design-related skills among planning staff in Scottish local authorities.
In a recent assessment of skills across all Scottish planning authorities and two
structure plan teams (Higgins et al, 2007),(11) 30% of planners surveyed considered that
they required an awareness of housing but had underdeveloped competence in housing-
related skills. The figure for urban design skills was 24%. In addition, urban ^ rural
design ranked second in a list of forty-three skills where training needs were identified
by respondents. Design was highlighted as one of their top three training needs by
planning officers, senior planners, and senior managers. Interviews with senior plan-
ning managers and external stakeholders showed design as the most important core
planning skill that was seen to be underdeveloped at all levels.
In a more in-depth investigation of skills required by planners and possible meth-
ods for developing these based on case studies in Scotland, Higgins and Forsyth (2006)
highlight that while planners have considerable decision power in the development
control process they are dependent on many other actors and factors to encourage
good design. They thus appear to be in a pivotal position linking the public, elected
members of government, and other built environment professionals to influence design
quality. The abilities needed, therefore, are considerably diverse, especially in the context
of a process which is often based on mediating among competing interests and

(11) This research included a survey of planners, supplemented by interviews with senior planning

managers and representatives of external stakeholders (see Higgins et al, 2007).

The role of planning in housing design 511

aggravated by lack of resources and time pressures. Communication with planning

and other departments, but also outside councils, as well as developing confidence to
put skills and knowledge into daily practice, were seen as crucial. Particularly öand in
contrast to the house builders' perception mentioned earlier öimproving urban design
skills was identified as key for raising the standards in planning departments.
Higgins and Forsyth (2006) concluded that continuing professional development
was essential to improve individuals' skills and thus practice. Training activities
implemented during their research achieved sounder understanding of aesthetic and
functional design principles and developed a range of technical design skills (policy
formulation, briefing and guidance, site analysis, strategic design, and design appraisal)
as well as transferable skills (engaging with others, negotiating, implementing, and
monitoring). Overall, `learning by doing' and reflecting on examples were valued as
best approaches for continuing to improve design skills. However, the investigation also
concluded that the relationship between improving skills and delivery of an effective
service is complex and should be included in a national design agenda. In other words,
whereas implementing design training for planners was considered essential for
raising design quality, wider understanding of the implications of the complexity of
the development process was needed. The DHHB research also found this, and
suggested this should include the roles of the actors involved and the factors that
affect their decision making.
The above findings are additionally evidenced in similar research in England.
CABE's (2001) Local Government Design Survey, which covered a range of local plan-
ning authorities, concluded that there is a need to increase design skills in local
authorities, the depth of skills in existing staff, and the input that professional staff
have on design matters. A follow-up survey (CABE, 2003) produced similar results,
emphasising the message that local governments need much more support in driving
design quality, and describing the UK planning system as one which ``often rewards
process rather than product'' (page 2)öan example of this would be the focus on
meeting planning application turn around time targets. It reported that more than
80% of local authorities admitted that lack of training and expertise was the main
factor for their reluctance to refuse applications on design grounds. The appointment
of design champions and setting up design panels were seen as useful mechanisms for
remedying the shortfall in design skills.(12)
The above findings are further supported by Hall's (2007) experience in Chelmsford,
where it was found that investing in building a strong design team with a proactive
approach to urban design helped to enable the authority to be more prescriptive in
design control and improvement of standards. Officers in this team were typically
engaged in the writing of relevant policies in local plans, character appraisals, and
briefs, as well as negotiation.
Despite the potential importance of planners in guiding and encouraging good
design, in the DHHB research the interviewed house builders generally perceived
the planning system as inhibiting design quality. The initial survey included a list of
factors, from which the respondents were invited to select whether these could
potentially assist, inhibit, or had no impact on their ability to achieve high-quality
design. In general, urban-development frameworks and master plans were believed
to assist delivering design quality, together with planning advice notes, development
(12) Aninteresting point highlighted by local authorities and reported in CABE's (2003) survey is
that design is one of a number of issues that these authorities are under pressure to respond to,
as is the need for economic regeneration. Therefore, `borderline' schemes, in which design is
`uninspiring' but `adequate', are particularly difficult to turn down when set against other benefits
they are likely to generate.
512 H Smith, S Garcia Ferrari, P Jenkins

Table 1. Factors which were believed to assist by more firms than believed they inhibited design
quality (total number of responses ˆ 27) (source: Scottish Government, 2007, page 46).

Factor Assist Inhibit No

impact

Master plans/urban development frameworks 16 4 7

Planning advice notes 14 5 5
Design standards 14 9 4
Consumer preferences 14 2 9
Development/design briefs 13 7 7
Scottish planning policies 10 5 8
Scottish Executive Architecture Policy 10 5 8
Architecture and Design Scotland 10 3 11
Urban design policyÐDesigning Places 9 6 9

briefs, and Scottish planning policies (table 1). However, opinions were evenly divided
with regards to Scottish policy guidance.
Overall, the issues seen as more likely to inhibit design quality were related to the
operation of the planning system as a whole and limitations on resources within
the system öin particular, the time involved in the planning application process and
its inflexibility. In addition, the involvement of planning committees, changes in building
regulations, and demands from statutory authorities were also considered as negative
influences to achieve design quality (table 2).
More in-depth information from the semistructured interviews in phase 2 con-
firmed the perception among house builders that the planning system usually inhibits
design quality. However, it was highlighted that occasionally an informed opinion

Table 2. Factors which were believed to inhibit by more firms than believed they assisted design
quality (total number of responses ˆ 27) (source: Scottish Government, 2007, page 46).

Factor Assist Inhibit No

impact

Resource levels in planning authorities 0 25 1

Time taken by the planning process 1 24 2
Level of flexibility in the planning process 1 23 3
Complexity of the planning process 2 22 3
Involvement of local planning committees 1 21 5
Local authority roads departments 3 21 3
Scottish Water 1 21 3
Planning system as a whole 4 20 2
Development control 4 20 2
Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2 20 3
Level of design skills in planning authorities 1 19 5
Changing building regulations legislation 2 19 5
Legislation changes other than building regulations 1 16 6
Land release policies/supply 2 15 7
Conservation 3 15 6
Building regulations 4 12 11
Development finance considerations 0 11 13
Local authority landscape departments 2 10 14
Design standards 14 9 14
Local authority cleansing departments 0 9 16
Health and safety considerations 4 9 12
The role of planning in housing design 513

during the planning process could have a positive influence. Providing design training
among planners was highly supported and therefore resources, experience, and knowl-
edge were identified as key issues. An important factor inhibiting design quality
mentioned by most interviewees was the length of time that obtaining planning consent
takes within the context of disconnected planning departments and related statutory
regulatory authorities. Time is therefore perceived as an important factor in the
development process. Timescales appear to be unbalanced, with the long process of
land purchase and obtaining statutory permissions then resulting in comparatively
short periods for design so as to start building on site as soon as possible. In this
context, house builders highlighted the need for more investment of time and resources
in developing master plans as a clear form of design guidance to assist a rapid design
and approval process; however, these were seen as needing to show a balance between
economic reality and planners' aspirations. Overall, a better understanding among
planners of the development process and the economic realities of developers in the
process of design and production were identified as an essential step forward.

Achieving good design: the process of developing housing from the developer's
perspective
Phase 2 of the DHHB research explored the role of design in the development process
as perceived by developers. The main priority in terms of designing a product was
seen as the achievement of a cost-effective proposal which at the same time satisfied
market demands. This is linked to `marketing of lifestyles' and affordability as well as
regulatory requirements such as accessibility and sustainability. However, in all cases
developers saw integration of design into the process as dependent on land supply, with
a fundamental difference being noted between developments on land that had been
part of a competitive bidding process and that which was part of an existing land bank.
Competitive bidding over land tends to be linked with short timescales for outline
layout production, analysis, and amendment in order to maximise the floor coverage of
the house types proposed as suitable for marketing. This has a strong impact on the
design produced. In these competitive situations, when it is difficult to balance market
requirements, floor-area maximisation, and site cost (ie calculating the residual land
value), the urban design and quality of place will be tempered by the commercial
reality of outbidding competitors. Time and cost pressures are less in the development
of sites which were previously purchased or are part of a land bank. However, this
tends to be the case of larger development companies, leaving small and newly estab-
lished developers in a disadvantageous positionöhaving to develop sites quickly and
not being able to afford time losses.
The DHHB research showed, therefore, that the form of land supply has a major
impact on housing design, including through limiting time for design between com-
petitive land purchase and starting on site, usually taking place within what are
perceived as lengthy planning and approval processes. Land release policies and
supply, controlled through the planning system, were thus seen as inhibiting high-
quality design by a larger number of firms than those seeing them as assisting or not
affecting design quality in the e-mail survey (table 2).
Another land-related issue that was reported to have an influence on design quality
was the lack of an overall strategy for development, including larger land releases and
the provision of defined master plans. The tendency to relatively small parcel-like land
release was seen as resulting in cul-de-sac developments, and poor quality of place and
infrastructure. As one interviewee from a large house builder firm put it: ``Land release
in small tranches won't help build communities, as this simply adds bits of housing
without facilities. Larger land releases could provide community facilities rather than
514 H Smith, S Garcia Ferrari, P Jenkins

just streets of houses.'' Here, a master plan was seen as an advantage if it permitted large
site development or cohesion across smaller sites within a larger master-planned area.
However, the observation that release of large sites may favour larger house-building
companies (Carmona et al, 2003) must be borne in mind in this regard.
Developers noted a particular distinction between the ways in which greenfield,
brownfield, and inner urban sites are designed. Greenfield sites are more likely to
utilise standard house types and in most case these developments use in-house teams
for design as well as market research and feasibility studies. Housing layouts, however,
could be the result of engaging with external consultants. Occasionally, the design of
these developments results from using typical housing layouts, which are sometimes
modified, mostly on their external appearance. On brownfield and inner urban sites
it is more likely that a bespoke development will be proposed due to strong planning
and other constraints. External design consultants are more likely to be part of these
processes, either to develop a one-off design or to adapt standard layouts to the
requirements of the site and planning regulations. In addition, if there is a need to
provide affordable housing, most developers employ external consultants to design
bespoke proposals (Scottish Government, 2007).

Key approaches to land-use planning and management in the UK and their influence
on housing design
As indicated, all developers in phase 2 of the DHHB research saw land supply as key
to the overall development process and strongly influencing the role of design, with
differences between land bidding and land banks. In addition, brownfield land was
seen as more likely than greenfield sites to require bespoke design, often contracting in
external design consultants. These findings appear to confirm Adams's (2004) argu-
ment in relation to the differences between brownfield and greenfield development.
Adams argued that the UK's changing regulatory environment, promoting brownfield
redevelopment, would have an impact on developers' competences. He identified
successful strategies for developers engaging in brownfield redevelopment as being
based not on profit making through optimisation of the land acquisition, banking,
and development processes ö with design and innovation being secondary ö but on a
process which would ``need to deliver value added directly from housing products
rather than rely on gaining profits from inflation in land prices'' (page 615).
In order to do this, Adams (2004) noted a range of competences which house
builders would need to develop. He listed those developed through greenfield develop-
ment experience as: knowing how to control ownership through land acquisition;
securing planning permission and other consents; and creating attractive marketing
images to attract customers. For each of these, brownfield development would require
new approaches. In relation to land acquisition, land banking would be more difficult,
and developers would have to engage with new networks for land assembly and quicker
acquisitions with higher site preparation costs. Regarding planning permission, devel-
opers would face possible lack of flexibility from planners in relation to changing
balance of uses of a site with regard to former uses, as well as potential residents'
opposition, particularly when development proposals involved increased densities.
And, finally, regarding marketing strategies, new marketing approaches would be
needed to sell more individualised designs to a more diverse market. Adams (2004)
argued that design as a core competence had not been highly valued in greenfield
developments, but would be essential for the development of brownfield schemes.
Tiesdell and Adams (2004) developed this theme by arguing how the role of
design and the designer in housing development takes place within an `opportunity
space' which is bounded in turn by the developer's opportunity space. This in turn is
The role of planning in housing design 515

constrained by three factors: site, market, and regulation. According to Tiesdell and
Adams (2004), in brownfield development the developer's opportunity space is squeezed
by more difficult sites (smaller, more fragmented in ownership, often contaminated,
and with less scope for land holding through options and/or conditional contacts and
for profit making on land value through midterm inflation) and by more demanding,
diverse, and competitive markets (with less scope for standardisation). This, they argue,
forces brownfield site developers to yield more opportunity space to designers, hence
increasing the possibility of better design. In addition, they noted that changes in the
English planning system have increased regulatory demands on the design of housing
on greenfield sites, also resulting in more opportunity space for designers.
Though the DHBB research largely confirms the operation of the processes
described by Adams (2004) and Tiesdell and Adams (2004) in a Scottish context, it
provides empirical material which allows further reflection on their arguments. Both
papers draw conclusions on the changes taking place in developers' strategies
brought about by the policy focus on brownfield land development, and on the
increasing role of skilled designers within this context. However, the role of planners
is addressed as part of only one of the contextual forces (structures) in Tiesdell
and Adam's (2004) model of the developer's opportunity space: that of regulation.
This recognises the planner's role as part of the structure, but not as agency, in the
development process.
Both the review of relevant Scottish policy and guidance above and the DHHB
research reveal, however, a strong role for planners as actors within the housing
development process. In the DHHB interviews this often emerged as negative percep-
tions of planners' inconsistent application, and low levels of design skills, among others.
More positively, Scottish guidance has identified the planner's role in creating condi-
tions for good design, and DHHB project house-builder interviewees confirmed this by
calling for planners who are better trained in design, clearer about policy-influenced
design expectations in housing developments, more involved in developing specific
guidance documents such as master plans, and more consistent in decision making.
In summary, the developers saw a role for planners who can be effective key drivers of
the design quality agenda in Scotland.
The DHHB research also reiterated the need for better understanding among
planners of the development process and the economic realities which face developers
in the process of design and production described above (eg Carmona and Gallent,
2004). In this regard, a higher awareness in planners of how developers' time and
resources for design on greenfield developments are `squeezed' by the relatively lengthy
periods relating to land purchase and statutory permissions in relation to costing
may be an encouragement to speed up planning approval. Similarly, an acceptance of
the importance attached by developers to clear proactive (if not overly prescriptive)
guidance in the form of master plans (beyond zoning plans), design codes, and other
documents may encourage planners to promote such forms of prior agreement in
regulation more readily. In relation to product, developers suggested that the planners'
role would be enhanced if they could discuss design solutions to clarify what they
considered to be `good'. Although in general the planning system was seen as inhibiting
design quality, some developers thought that well-informed planners could have a
positive influence on design.
Developers' views on planners' influence on design quality therefore focused
mainly on procedural issues and on planners' design skills. Though the latter were
not explicitly defined in interviews, they tended to be related to topics addressed in
the relevant policies and guidance (such as Designing Places)öfor example, layout
516 H Smith, S Garcia Ferrari, P Jenkins

issuesöand appeared to involve planners being acquainted with the types of skills
normally deployed by urban designers and architects.(13)
Reflection on the findings from the DHHB research, as well as on Adams (2004)
and Tiesdell and Adams (2004), suggests, however, that planners may have a strong
influence on design through how they approach a role that has always been central to
their profession: the regulation of land use. Tiesdell and Adams's (2004) model of the
developer's opportunity space identifies site and regulation as two distinct external
forces (structures), but does not highlight the influence that UK planning regulation
has on the definition of sites. Land becomes a development `site' only when the planning
system identifies (`releases') land for development and/or grants planning permission.
This is of course recognised by house builders when they call for more land to be
earmarked for housing through development plans, and for speedier turnaround of
planning applications. But this refers to land supply from only a quantitative point
of view. What is less explicit is the impact on design that the qualitative aspects of land
release might have.
A number of interviewees criticised land release policies which are incremental in
the sense of limited parcels of land being made available for development, often on the
edges of existing development, without an overall strategy or masterplan, and with
poor provision and/or planning of infrastructure to serve these. This was seen as not
conducive to good urban design as described in the guidance. On the other hand,
larger sites were seen by small and medium-sized house-building firms as being acces-
sible only to large firms, potentially leading to less diversity in design. This suggests
that a balance has to be struck between providing sites or development areas which are
large enough to enable overarching development and design strategies to be played out,
while at the same time allowing diversity in the detailed design of smaller areas within
these.
Examples of how this could be achieved abound in international and historical
experience. To cite only a couple: the much acclaimed 19th and 20th-century develop-
ment of Barcelona was based on the definition of a grid which provided a strategy for
urban expansion well beyond the old city walls, promoting good connections and mixed
use on a block-by-block basis, while allowing diversity in the development of specific
plots after existing landholdings had been reconfigured through land pooling;(14) and
in the 21st-century regeneration of Hamburg's inner waterfront (HafenCity) the local
authority as landowner has master planned and released land in parcels which are bid
for by developers on the basis of the quality of their proposal rather than on price, the
latter being fixed by the development authority managing the regeneration. Examples
of land-use and development decisions which facilitated good design also exist in the
UK, ranging from the development of Edinburgh's first new town (Edwards and
Jenkins, 2005) to recent master-planned developments [as illustrated in some case
studies in the DHHB report (see also Forsyth and Higgins, 2009)] öthough the issue
of land ownership in these cases needs to be taken into consideration.
This reflection leads the authors to suggest that the `upskilling' of planners in the
UK, in order to facilitate implementation of the current design agenda and achieve
improved quality in the design of housing developments, involves more than an under-
standing of substantive urban design concepts and theories, and associated skills in
visualising and appraising three-dimensional design, as well as in preparing the range
of documents linked to these. Additionally, a crucial contribution that falls within the
(13) The skills of architects, however, were not always valued by house builders as useful to the

design of the housing units, in particular in relation to buildability.

(14) What failed in this case was planners' control over density, which resulted in the blocks

becoming far more built up and with less open space than originally intended.
The role of planning in housing design 517

planners' remit is the understanding of how approaches to land release and development
can affect the scope for design as an activity (through understanding and working with
the land development process and not ignoring this) and as a result (through under-
standing the design potentials and implications of particular ways of designating and
`packaging' land for development).

Conclusions: implications of a wider planning framework for housing design

Summarising, over the last decade in the UK there has been increased policy interest
in housing design, ranging from design quality to technical issues including sustain-
abilityöin parallel with a growing urban design agenda and related publication of
guidance. Within this, Scottish planning policy and guidance on housing design is
subsumed in, and permeated by, an urban design approach, with implicit definitions
of good design being linked to notions of successful place making. It has also been
increasingly explicit about the assignment of responsibilities towards the achievement
of design quality, with developers being primarily identified as responsible for deliver-
ing this (with skilled professional assistance). In this context, planners are seen mainly
as facilitators tasked with creating the right conditions for good design, including
advice on design and urban design matters.
In contrast, as the recent DHHB research has highlighted, house-builder percep-
tions of design quality in housing focus more on issues related to marketability and
buildability, though recognising the importance of place making and seeing links
between this and the influence of location on marketability, with limited interest and
efforts dedicated to urban design issues per se as this is subordinated to the land
acquisition and marketing processö and heavily mediated by planning. While antag-
onistic concerning the impact of the planning process on site development times and
hence profitability, house builders do see planners as having a role in creating the
right conditions for good design insofar as the place-making and urban design
agenda is concerned, and would favour more proactive, clear, and consistent involve-
ment of planners as a driving force for the design agenda, using instruments such as
master plans, but avoiding excessive prescription and inconsistent interpretation.
A key factor that the house builders highlight in order to achieve this is the need
for training and other skill resources to help planners interact with the housing
industry more effectively. Of significance for this paper, however, these skills are not
only those more directly associated with design as in urban place making öfor exam-
ple, understanding of design principles normally used by building and urban design
(layouts, aesthetics, etc); processes linked to design ranging from strategic (eg in
development plans) to detailed (eg development briefs); and related transferable skills
such as negotiation. In addition to this, these needed skills should include more
in-depth understanding of the development process and the impact on this of planning
processes and decisions. The DHHB research thus confirms Hooper and Nicol's (2000,
page 306) findingöamong othersöthat ``the constraints of land availability affecting
the economics of residential development are impinging directly upon the related
processes of dwelling design and estate layout.'' However, the DHHB research also
suggests that, as part of an understanding of the development process, planners and
the planning system also need to more fully understand the design implications of how
land-use planning and management can create and/or affect conditions for quality
housing design, ranging from the impact of the form and sequencing of land release
to detailed processes and conditions at site level (eg coordination on regulation beyond
planning).
Thus, while various planning schools refocus their education to reinforce design
skills, and local authorities undertake continuing professional development on design, this
518 H Smith, S Garcia Ferrari, P Jenkins

needs to be embedded within a more realistic appreciation of the wider structural

impacts on the housing development process in the UK, and the ways developers act
and react within the wider economy. This needs to be contemporary, as, since the above
study was undertaken, for example, the current recession has raised levels of uncertainty
over how developers' approaches and priorities may change to address economic
realities (Jenkins and MacLachlan, 2010). While it is quite possible that economic issues
will take priority over design aspirations in house builders' decision making, there may
be opportunity for exploration of what the public sector means by good design in new
interests in council-house building programmes. (15) In addition, the recession may
impact on the spread of size of house builders, reinforcing either the trend to concen-
tration in a limited number of UK-wide forms, or the survival of smaller firms through
diversification and upskilling. This may also have an impact on how land banks survive
and develop and hence possible polarisation in terms of the design potential in larger
master-planned areas.
In conclusion, we argue for a more comprehensive perception of design and its
quality provision and regulation in housing developments, including an in-depth under-
standing of the development process and how developers perceive of design quality
(with which the DHHB report and potentially this paper can assist). This wider under-
standing needs to be embedded within the planning process, not only with planners,
but also with other regulatory authorities and decision makers. To this end, design
skills training needs to also look at design parameters created through the wider
development process and the way this changes, balancing structural issues with the
agency of specific decision making. Planning has an important role in assuring and
encouraging design qualityöthe government and the developers both agree on thisö
but their ways of understanding how this can be undertaken are different and need to
be brought closer together. This, of course, is only one part of the picture, as the more
structural factors found by previous research and confirmed by the DHHB project also
require attention.
References
Adams D, 2004, ``The changing regulatory environment for speculative housebuilding and the
construction of core competencies for brownfield development'' Environment and Planning A
36 610 ^ 624
Ball M, 1999, ``Chasing a snail: innovation and housebuilding firms' strategies'' Housing Studies
14 9 ^ 22
Barker K, 2004 Review of Housing Supply. Final Report: Recommendations (The Stationery Office,
London)
Barlow J, 1999, ``From craft production to mass customisation: innovation requirements for the UK
housebuilding industry'' Housing Studies 14 23 ^ 42
Biddulph M, 2008, ``Turning a town around: a proactive approach to urban design'' Urban Design
International 13 201 ^ 202
CABE, 2001 Local Government Design Survey: The Results Commission for Architecture and
the Built Environment, London
CABE, 2003 Review of Local Authorities Planning Departments: Survey Results Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment, London
Callcutt Review, 2007 The Callcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery Department for Communities
and Local Government, London
Carmona M, 1999, ``Controlling the design of private sector residential development: an agenda
for improving practice'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 807 ^ 833
Carmona M, Gallent N, 2004, ``Planning and house building: a step change from the bottom up? ''
Town Planning Review 75 95 ^ 122
Carmona M, Carmona S, Gallent N, 2003 Delivering New Homes: Processes, Planners and Providers
(Routledge, London)
(15) The first major programme of such nature in Scotland for thirty years is being discussed (see

http://housingdiscussion.scotland.gov.uk/media/2597/Housing Debate Green Paper.pdf).

The role of planning in housing design 519

Edwards B, Jenkins P, 2005 Edinburgh: The Making of a Capital City (Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh)
Forsyth F, Higgins M, 2009, ``Edinburgh: catching up with the contemporary'', in Urban Design
and the British Urban Renaissance Ed. J Punter (Routledge, London) pp 245 ^ 261
Gibb K, 1999, ``Regional differentiation and the Scottish private housebuilding sector'' Housing
Studies 14 43 ^ 56
Hall A C, 1990, ``Generating urban design objectives for local areas'' Town Planning Review 61
287 ^ 309
Hall A C, 2007 Turning a Town Around: A Proactive Approach to Urban Design (Blackwell, Oxford)
HBF, Commission for the Built Environment, Civic Trust, 2003 Building for Life: A Commitment
to Quality from House Builders (Home Builders Federation, London)
Higgins M, Forsyth L, 2006, ``Raising the standard: design skills for practising planners'' Town
Planning Review 77 605 ^ 624
Higgins M, Brown C, Prior A, McCarthy J, Hachmann V, Durning B, 2007 Scottish Planning
Authorities Skills Assessment Improvement Service, Broxburn, W Lothian
Hooper A, Nicol C, 1999, ``The design and planning of residential development: standard house
types and the speculative housebuilding industry'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 26 793 ^ 805
Hooper A, Nicol C, 2000, ``Design practice and volume production in speculative housebuilding''
Construction Management and Economics 18 295 ^ 310
Jenkins P, MacLachlan F, 2010, ``Is there a role for architects in mainstream private sector house
building? '' The Journal of Architecture 15 153 ^ 180
Lee B, 2009, ``Holistic housing adviser'' Planning 13 March, http://www.planningresource.co.uk/
inDepth/ByDiscipline/Housing/889303/Holistic-housing-adviser/
Llewelyn-Davies, 2000 Urban Design Compendium English Partnerships and the Housing
Corporation, London
Nicol N, Hooper A, 1999, ``Contemporary change and the housebuilding industry: concentration
and standardisation in production'' Housing Studies 14 57 ^ 76
OFT, 2008 Homebuilding in the UK: A Market Study Office of Fair Trading, London
Scottish Executive (The Stationery Office, Edinburgh)
2001a A Policy on Architecture for Scotland
2001b Designing Places: A Policy Statement for Scotland
2003a SPP3 Planning for Housing
2003b PAN 67 Housing Quality
2003c PAN 68 Design Statements
2005a PAN 72 Housing in the Countryside
2005b PAN 76 New Residential Streets
Scottish Government, 2007 Design at the Heart of House-Building Scottish Government Social
Research, Edinburgh
Scottish Government, 2008 SPP3 Planning for Homes (The Stationery Office, Edinburgh)
Thomas K, 2008, ``Giving planners the lead in changes'' Planning 30 May,
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/rtpi/812578/Giving-planners-lead-changes/
Tiesdell S, Adams D, 2004, ``Design matters: major house builders and the design challenge of
brownfield development contexts'' Journal of Urban Design 9 23 ^ 45
Urban Design Skills Working Group, 2001 Report to the Minister for Housing, Planning and
Regeneration Commission for the Built Environment, London

ß 2011 Pion Ltd and its Licensors

Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research
by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other
online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.