More on Country House Ban

On the story about the British government banning the construction of Traditional new country houses, there's an update from Building Design online (requires free registration):

Traditionalists outraged as government insists on rural modernism
By Zoë Blackler

The government has hit back at claims made by traditionalists this week that it wants to promote the construction of modernist country homes at the expense of more traditional architecture.

Following his statement that new country homes would be allowed if the design was “innovative” and “ground-breaking”, housing and planning minister Keith Hill told BD there would still be plenty of scope for traditional designs and materials.

But traditional architects were outraged when Hill called for an end to “historic pastiche” in favour of “contemporary, cutting-edge designs”. And the government’s insistence it is not imposing taste standards was rubbished by the traditional groups’ de facto leader Robert Adam.

Two more quotes, one from the Minister of Planning, Keith Hill, and one from traditional architect Robert Adam:

“The emphasis is on looking to the future — on innovation in design, construction methods and materials,” [Hill] said. “We are against the replication of designs from the past.”

Robert Adam, who specialises in country houses for private clients, said he was “absolutely gobsmacked” by the wording.

“Be absolutely clear,” he warned. “There is no doubt whatsoever that the government is declaring modernism to be its chosen style. There’s no other way of interpreting it. This is a stylistic statement. It departs from the position of every government from time immemorial not to be in involved with style.”

Under the revised countryside planning guidance PPS7, which came into effect on Tuesday, planners can allow an isolated house to be built on open countryside if the design is “truly outstanding and ground-breaking”.

The RIBA feared the so called “Gummer’s clause” would be scrapped, but instead it has been tightened.

Hill denied the government was imposing a “taste standard”.

“We are certainly looking for the best in contemporary design,” he said, “but that doesn’t have to be steel and glass. It could be contemporary design with traditional materials, like the work of David Chipperfield. Or a traditional design which is highly innovative in materials or ecologically, such as Robert Adam’s Solar House.”

The wording was designed to establish an architectural legacy for future generations, he added.

“The emphasis is on looking to the future — on innovation in design, construction methods and materials,” he said. “We are against the replication of designs from the past.”

Robert Adam, who specialises in country houses for private clients, said he was “absolutely gobsmacked” by the wording.

“Be absolutely clear,” he warned. “There is no doubt whatsoever that the government is declaring modernism to be its chosen style. There’s no other way of interpreting it. This is a stylistic statement. It departs from the position of every government from time immemorial not to be in involved with style.”

Adam said that Hill had ignored entreaties from TAG — the Traditional Architects Group — to steer clear of stylistic references in the new PPS7.

“Keith Hill saying this doesn’t exclude traditional architecture is complete nonsense,” he added. “To bring the word ‘contemporary’ in is tautologous. Contemporary is an established shorthand for modernism. Innovation is being different for its own sake, and cutting-edge is the same thing.”

The decision to retain the country-house exception follows lobbying by the RIBA and Cabe with support from key figures across the architecture profession and MPs on both sides of the House of Commons.

The new guidance:

“Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission.

“Such a design should be truly outstanding and ground-breaking. For example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas.

“The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area.”

PPS7: The Gummer effect

Since it was introduced in 1997 within the earlier planning guidance PPS7, “Gummer’s clause” has given rise to schemes such as:

* Robert Adam Architects Ashley, Hampshire: won planning permission in 2000.
* Ushida Findlay New Grafton Hall, Cheshire: won planning permission in August 2002.
* Stanton Williams Poulton Gorse House, Gloucestershire: won planning permission in May 2003.
* ShedKM Corbyn House, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire: won planning permission in May 2003
* Eldridge Smerin Iden Croft, Kent: won planning permission in November 2003.
* James Gorst Architects Ropers Farm, Essex: lost on appeal in February 2004.
* Jonathan Ellis-Miller Cambridgeshire: awaiting final approval.