Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

12.07.18: Homes

The latest AJ focuses on homes, with building studies of Tonkin Liu’s RIBA National Award-winning Old Shed New House in North Yorkshire; Mole Architects’ Fijal House in Cambridgeshire; and a house in Hollybrook Grove, Dublin, by David Leech Architects. We also look at why so few Country House Clause projects win planning approval. PLUS a Yorkshire parliament concept wins the top architecture prize at the RA Summer Exhibition; How could fire have broken out at the Mac for the second time?; The full list of projects shortlisted for this year’s AJ Retrofit Awards; and the AJ/Crown Estate Future Retail Destinations charrette.

000 cvr webbo ajw 180712

000 cvr webbo ajw 180712

Subscriber?

To view this issue, please log in and select ‘My AJ’ on the menu bar. Click ‘Digital editions’ to read your AJ.

Want to buy this issue? 

You can buy a copy of the issue by clicking here – or become an AJ subscriber and read it online right now! 

Spread webbo 180712

Spread webbo 180712

Readers' comments (1)

  • I welcome the contribution Colin Marrs makes to a discourse on Paragraph 55 planning consents. There are some aspects of his commentary though that I take issue with, especially as they implicate design review.

    I am a Landscape Architect and have chaired numerous reviews of P55/PPS7 schemes over several years. Only slowly is the quality of approach improving and there are still many instances where the ambition is simply in the wrong place and the client should have been discouraged at the outset. Colin Marrs implies that the Architect’s job is always to secure planning permission just because the client desires it and is prepared to pay. I am often struck by the feeling that a wealthy client has his/her hands on an already attractive piece of countryside and thinks throwing money at the job should secure permission, regardless of whether the place is right.

    The wording in NPPF is fairly sound, although it benefits from thorough analysis in each case of application, but I would strongly favour a reversal of the two new bullet points, so that benefit to the landscape and setting is paramount: appropriateness of site selection should be a fundamental prequalification for going to the next stage of producing an outstanding or innovative design response. This is where professional landscape advice is so important and should be sought before Architect puts pen to paper. In some cases that should stop the show altogether, or relocate to a more receptive landscape, ideally one suffering from some form of neglect or degradation that generates scope for benefit.

    My second nerve-jarring reaction was to the word ‘landscaping’ (a tragic presence in our vocabulary that is best banished altogether) and ‘landscape’ being something other than buildings. Buildings are part of the landscape, indeed they often define the landscape they become part of. Clients need to be guided in the ethos of landscapes having cultural meaning and that they have responsibility for respecting and nurturing its qualities. The sensitivity with which new buildings are inserted into a landscape will always be the first test of design review, followed by the other changes to the external spaces that generate new meaning for the resulting ‘whole’ landscape. Architectural style is more negotiable but must originate in that meaning and express it rather than determine it.

    Tom Lonsdale

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.