Current planning policy in England enables local planning authorities to require housing developments above a certain size to include a proportion of ‘affordable’ housing. The policy has social objectives (that is, to create ‘mixed’ communities and reduce the potential for the ‘ghettoisation’ of affordable housing) and financial objectives (that is, to shift the cost of providing social housing to the private sector). Although aspects of the policy have been the subject of research the design issues have yet to be fully investigated. Viewed from a development process perspective, the key design question is how layout and design decisions are affected by the developer's perception (or market experience) that the inclusion of affordable units has a detrimental effect on the market-rate housing. To aid further research, the author develops a classification of design strategies and outcomes necessitated by the inclusion of an element of affordable housing.
References
1.
BlakelyE JSnyderM G, 1997Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA)
2.
CareyLMapesR, 1972The Sociology of Planning: A Study of Social Activity on New Housing Estates (B T Batsford, London)
3.
CannonaM, 2001Housing Design Quality: Through Policy, Guidance and Review (Spon, London)
4.
ColeIFurbeyR, 1994The Eclipse of Council Housing (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London)
5.
CrookA D HJacksonA M, 2001, “Ambiguous hypothecation: The planning system and subsidies for affordable housing”, paper presented to The Planning Research Conference, Liverpool, April; copy available fromDepartment of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield
6.
CrookA D HWhiteheadC M E, 2002, “Social housing and planning gain: Is this an appropriate way of providing affordable housing?”Environment and Planning A34, 1259–1279
7.
CrookA D HCurryJJacksonAMonkSRowleySSmithKWhiteheadC, 2001The Provision of Affordable Housing through the Planning System discussion paper, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
8.
CrookA D HCurryJJacksonAMonkSRowleySSmithKWhiteheadC, 2002Planning Gain and Affordable Housing: Making it Count (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York)
9.
DETR, 1998Circular 06/98: Planning and Affordable Housing Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London)
10.
DETR, 2000Planning Policy Guidance Note No 3: Housing Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London)
11.
DoE, 1992Planning Policy Guidance Note No 3: Housing Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London)
12.
DTLR, 2001Planning Green Paper: Planning: Delivering a Fundamental ChangeDepartment of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
13.
DTLR, 2002Planning Obligations: Delivering a Fundamental ChangeDepartment of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
14.
DTLR/CABE, 2001By Design: Better Places to Live, A Design Companion to PPG3 Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London
15.
GansH J, 1961, “The balanced community: Homogeneity or heterogeneity in residential areas?”Journal of the American Institute of Planners27, 176–184
16.
GansH J, 1968People and Planning: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
17.
GoodchildB, 1997Housing and the Urban Environment: A Guide to Housing Design, Renewal and Urban Planning (Longman, Harlow, Essex)
18.
JuppD, 1999Living TogetherDEMOS, The Mezzanine, Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London SE1 7NQ
19.
LangJ, 1987Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioural Sciences in Environmental Design (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
20.
MMS, 2002New Homes TodayMitton Marketing Solutions, research report for New Homes Marketing Board & Halifax plc, London; copy available from the author
21.
Mulholland & Associates, 2000PPG3: The Consumer Response research report for the House Builders Federation, London; copy available from the author
22.
NCC, 2001Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable HousingNorwich City Council, Norwich, City Hall, Norfolk NR2 1NH
23.
PageD, 1993Building for Communities: A Study of New Housing Association Estates (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York)
24.
PatriciosN N, 2002, “The neighbourhood concept: A retrospective of physical design and social interaction”Journal of Architectural and Planning Research19(1) 70–90
25.
SennettR, 1977The Fall of Public Man (Faber and Faber, London)
26.
SennettR, 1990The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities (Faber and Faber, London)
27.
SEU, 1998Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood RenewalSocial Exclusion Unit, Cabinet Office, London
28.
TalenE, 1999, “Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of New Urbanism”Urban Studies36, 1361–1379
29.
TalenE, 2000, “The problem with community in planning”Journal of Planning Literature15(2) 171–183
30.
UTF, 1999Towards an Urban Renaissance Urban Task Force (E & F N Spon, London)
