i 350 EDITORIAL NOTE will be a further source of delay. The fact that district development plans do not require the approval of the Secretary of State may save time in one sense, but may also be a reason for allowing slippage, ‘The new system may have its appeal for those who see the present mechanisms as being too complex. Many, however, will take the view that if we are to have a ‘major upheaval at twenty-year intervals, the proposals for reform should ke based (on @ comprehensive analysis of the operation of the existing system. and should retain that system’s most effective features. The Future of Development Plans is a document based on narrow aciministrative principles. It is difficult to be optimistic about the prospects for the system it introducesTOR 57 (4 1986 JOHN PUNTER A history of aesthetic control: Part 1, 1909-1953 ‘The control of the external appearance of development in England and Wales ‘This article explores the erly history of aesthetic control in England and Wales and its gradual emergence as pat ofa near-comprehensive system of ‘evelooment control in 1987, The development of legislation, goverament advice, Focal ntatives and puble pressure are described against the Background ofthe Planning issues ofthe day. The tension between loca inflates for greater onto ancl central goveinments preference for design ireedom for developers, Isidentifed and the origins of thearchitecual profession's antipathy tocontol areexplained. The postion of aesthetic control nthe postovatplanaingystem isexamined, and the immediate mocificatlons made tots practice ae analysed ae related ta curentcontroversie= A second ariel. tobe published inthe January 1987 issue ofthe Toow Planing Reve, wll eormplete tis history Lp tothe present ‘Aesthetic control is the term that has been commonly employed in Britain to embrace the exercise of planning control over the external appearance and visual impact of development. Despite its central importance to planning practice there has never been a coherent account of how aesthetic control has emerged and developed in the last seventy-ive years, leave alone any comprehensive evaluation ofits impact upon the built environment. Yet itis only by examining how and why the system developed that we can explain the accepted practice of control, and the postures taken by the various interested patties which are continually seeking to extend or limitintererence’ in the design of buildings. This paper attempts t0 analyse the origins of the procedures and methods used in control, and the consequent tensions and conflicts which dominate the debate over its practice and utility today. It seeks to comprehend the long-standing altitudes of central government and the competing professions and to establish the critical bones of contention in the argument. I examines the development of control from its origins in the intial 1909 legislation, through the 1947 Town and 351352 JOHN PUNTER Country Planning Act, which established a comprehensive system of development control, and on to post-war modifications which established the broad lineaments of the system we have today. A second paper will examine the emerging orthodoxy cf control in the 1960s, the parallel development of conservation legislation, and the particular pressures placed on aesthetic control since the mid-1970s, 1909-1928: Establishing the precedents for aesthetic control {An important concern of the 1909 Housing and Town Planning Act was the desire to improve upon the drab monotony of by-law housing development which followed in the wake of the Public Health Acts. John Burns, the ex-Labour President of the Local Government Board, intencled the Bill ‘to secure the home healthy, the house beautiful, the town pleasant, the city dignified, and the suburb salubrious,, but it was only the latter that fell within the powers of the eventual rather timid, Act. From the perspective of aesthetic control there were three cucial sections of the Act' The first referred to the ‘general object of securing proper sanitary conditions, amenity and convenience in connection with the laying out and use of the land, and of any neighbouring lands’ (s. 54 [i)), a concise reference to the different orientations in the campaign for town planning legislation. The actual notion of amenity was not defined and has remained ambiguous to this day.? The second crucial section (s. 55 il) permitted the suspension of pre- existing by-laws and statutory enactments, thus permitting the greater freedom of design sought by most lobbyists. The third crucial section (s. 59 [il) noted that ‘property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected’ by regulations ;prescribing the space about buildings or limit{ing] the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribling] the height of character of buildings’, thus removing the threat of compensation payments? Many town planning schemes did not attempt to go beyond controlling the pattern of arterial roads and protecting Key areas of open space. However the second scheme submitted, that for Ruislip-Northwood Urban District, broke new ground by attempting to widen the scope of the Act to extend controls to exsting built-up areas, It included an ‘entirely novel provision’ to allow the Council to control the character or design of buildings by requiring the submission of full pans and patticulars (including elevations) as required. The following clause, though much amended, stands as a key legal precedent in the development of aesthetic control If. .the Council are of opinion that the character of the building or buildings proposed to be erected or altered would be injurious to the amenity of the neighbourhood, whether on account of the design or the undue repetition of the design or the materials to be used, the Council may require such reasonable alterations to be made in regard to the design of materials as they may think fit. * In the event of dispute, the proposed building was to be referred to a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Royal Institute of British ArchitectsA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | 353 ‘The permissive provisions of thé 1909 Act did not produce anything like the widespread development of town planning schemes for which the promoters had hoped. While the 1919 Act simplified the town planning scheme procedure, and made it compulsory for all borough and district councils with @ population of ‘greater than 20000 to prepare schemes (for land in the course of, or likely to be. developed), progress was slow. By the end of 1933 only 94 schemes covering 152182 acres had been approved. Clearly then the development of contrcl was patchy and rather idiosyncratic.® In fact, the greatest strides towards the widespread control of exeral appearance probably took place outside the suburban town planning schemes ‘The 1921 City of Liverpool Corporation Act led the way and gave the Corporation powers to control the height, line and elevations of buildings as well as advertisements, trees and street furniture, Newcastle-upon-Tyne gained a similar Act (under the 1925 Planning legislation), as did Hastings, Portsmouth, Southampton and Romford, The concern over the threat of redevelopment to the fabric of the historic towns of England and Wales was given legal expression in the 1923 Housing Act which allowed the Minister to authorise town planning schemes in ‘areas of special architectural or historic interest’. At least five historic cities— Oxford, Winchester, Exeter, Canterbury and York—used this provision to help preserve the existing character and features of the locality ® In 1923 the Ministry of Health issued its first set of model clauses to guide local authorities in the drafting of town planning schemes. Foremost among them was a form of character zoning that restricted certain uses and forbade others in seven types of zone. Density and density zones, building height and line, plot coverage land open space reservation were also included and a special section on ‘general convenience and amenity’ contained an ad hoc collection of clauses to regulate safety of traffic, preservation of trees, advertisements and private gardens. Eut no model clauses were forthcoming until the 1930s on the control of design and character of buildings, indicating that the Ministry of Health either wanted to avoid the contentious issue, or did not approve of the Ruislip-Northwood cause. or both? The 1925 Planning Act enabled by-laws to be passed to ensure the preservation of buildings or neighbourhood character and generally allowed town planning schemes in built-up areas. In terms of aesthetic control its significance was rather overshadowed by another locally inspired Act of Parliament, the Bath Corporation ‘Act. This went further than the schemes in the other historic towns to permit the actual approval of elevations and materials and set up an Advisory Commitzee to deal with rejected schemes. The Advisory Committee was to be composed of three ppersons—one Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), one Fellow Of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (both appointed by the respective President of the Institute}, and one Justice of the Peace The Corporation paid the fees and expenses of the Committee and the triumvirate’s decision had the effect of a Corporation decision® ‘This approach received cautious Ministry of Health blessing in the Annual Report of 1926-7, but with the proviso that a real improvement in cesign depended on the ‘general growth’ of aesthetic taste and feeling. and the spread of,354 JOHN PUNTER its influence by the force of education, example and persuasion. Although ‘education and persuasion have never been seriously promoted, central govern- ent continues to adhere to this view today If urban conservation issues dominated the legislative developments in aesthetic control in the first half of the 1920s, rural conservation concems eclipsed them from 1926 until 1939, as a direct result of the campaigns of the Society [later Council] for the Preservation [later Protection| of Rural England (SPRE/CPRE). In fact, rural controls came from an unlikely source, the Housing (Rural Workers) Act cof 1926 {and the subsequent circular No, 756), a measure designed to assist the fetention and Improvement of country cottages. The Minister suggested that, in ‘executing the Act, local authorities should either liaise with ‘some voluntary ‘Advisory Committee or Panel’ or ‘appoint an architect”. Since most rural district Councils could not afford to hite an architect the Advisory Committee was a more feasible option, a fact quickly grasped by the SPRE who formulated the idea of voluntary Advisory Panels of architects in conjunction with the Royal institute of British Architects (RIBA) under a Central Panels Committee. They were to advise both the cottage-owner making repairs and the local authority making the grant. ‘The role of the Panels was extended in 1928 in Circular 940, as a result of the growing campaign for the protection of the countryside against building development, and their influence as ‘arbiters of taste’ became one of the critical issues in the control of external appearance in the 1930s (Fig. 1)” ‘Throughout the 1920s, by contrast to today, a good deal of interest was shown, In European and American models of design and those campaigning for plenning controls were well aware of haw far Britain lagged behind other western countries. ‘The study of alternative systems of control produced at least one direct influence on British practice in the shape of the Royal Fine Art Commission (RFAC). The idea of an att commission to advise on major developments and civic design projects had several precedents. Some saw it as merely the revival of the old ‘Committee of Taste’ which had operated in London in the early nineteenth century, but the main model for an Arts Committee was an American one, following the perceived success of Advisory Art Commissions in effectively promoting the ‘City Beautiful Movement’ in various American cities, The Royal Fine Art Commission was finally established in 1924 as a purely advisory body from which ‘the Government or any other authority of standing’ might seek advice (on any ‘artistic question in the open-air. The Initial commission contained four leading architects and two Lords to ‘powerfully represent’ (to use Trystan Edwards’ unintentionally ironic words) the lay public. It was envisaged that in the ‘early yeats the Commission would tread warily, and it was not until 1939 that its ‘warrant was extended, entitling it to ‘call the attention of the Government and public authorities to any project or development which may appear to the Commission to threaten amenities of a national or public character’ ‘The actual work of the Commission rarely made any impact upon the debate cover aesthetic control until the early 1960s, and its role was unobtrusive and discreet and generally ‘typical of English polite institutions." Its main client seems to have been the Ministry of Works which frequently sought its advice on public memorials and building preservation in particulat. In 1946 the RFAC'SA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART 1 mandate was further extended to allow it access to documents, places and people, and this gave it significantly wider interventionist powers and allowed it to play a higher profile role. But its inability to take @ public stance, and the clcak of ‘diplomacy and secrecy’ which surrounded its interventions, have net yet permitted it to play a truly prominent role in the development of aesthetic control? 1932-1939: The Town and Country Planning Act and a more restrictive circular ‘The growing influence of the CPRE, and its campaign for more comprehensive planning controls, did not finally gain legislative expression until 1932, after two false starts as a Private Member's and a Labour Government Bill. A major concession had to be made to Consenative critics by excluding from town planning schemes so-called ‘static’ ateas (Le. areas where there was no likelihood of extensive development) except places of natural interest or beauty or areas of historic or artistic Interest. This definition effectively prevented aesthetic control from being exercised over the larger part of a bullt-up area, Whereas adoption of, town planning schemes had been obligatory for some authorities since 1919. once again it became voluntary for all. From the perspective of the control of external appearance this defect was overshadowed by the fact that Section 12 (i) (c) of the ‘Act enabled provisions to be inserted in a scheme ‘regulating the size. height, design and external appearance of buildings’, while other sub-sections allowed local authorities to prescribe the space about buildings, to limit their number and Impose restrictions on their use, and to regulate tree preservation and advertisements.'? Any scheme regulating design or external appearance had to make provision for a tribunal (on the 1926 Bath lines) and the grounds for appeal to the trlounal could include the fact that compliance with the decision would Involve an unreasonable increase in the cost of the project. ‘Abercrombie, who had long been campaigning for this legislation in both his professional capacities and as Secretary to the CPRE, was enthusiastic about the scope of the new provisions, but there is little evidence that the Ministry shared his wide interpretation of the available powers. For Circular 1305 wamed local authorities that "... taste is not a matter for dogmatism’ and that ‘the powers should be used for preventing what may reasonably be regarded as outrages, buildings out of keeping with thelr surroundings and an offence to the neighbourhood’. The ‘prevention of outrages’ role may be seen as a teference back to the limited role for aesthetic control envisaged by the RIBA in the 1920s. The apparent discrepancy between the legislation, which gave unequivocal con:rol of, external appearance, and the citcular. which attempted to circumscribe that control closely, produced a good deal’ of debate and is of great contemporary relevance as successive ministers attempt to limit the extent to which control over external appearance may be operated. As an anonymous Oxford official operating the legislation noted the local authority have to show that the elevations to which they take exception ‘seriously disfigure the amenities of the street’. These words356 JOHN PUNTER impose a pretty severe restriction on their powers, and confine the elevation against which they ate prepared to fight to two types—a capable design in the wrong place and a hopelessly incapable design anywhere...” The latter point was actually incorporated into ministerial design advice ir 1959 and cleatly exemplified in appeal decisions in the 1960s. Meanwhile, when the Ministry drafted its model clauses on the external appearance of buildings, it stated that approval should be withheld if the building ‘would disfigure the locality by reason of its external appearance or size’. it also noted that, while materials could be contralled in so far as they affected external appearance, it Was not intended that such contrals be exercised over the whole of the planning area, another persistent theme of current circulars.'® ‘Although Circular 1305 severely constrained the wide powers of the 1932 Act, it contained two important pieces of advice on the publication of design guidance land the wider use of Architectural Advisory Panels. It endorsed the production of simple design guidance (noting that such leaflets already existed in some authorities) along with standard low-cost housing designs. It bemoaned the lack Of use of Architectural Advisory Panels and urged consultation with businessmen, friendly advice. and even sketch plans for developers, while leaving scope for individual initiative (advice strongly echoed forty years later in Circular 142/73). Design guidance had first appeared in 1927 and proliferated after 1953, principally stimulated by the CPRE, It often adapted elements of the public housing-orented 1919 Housing Manual, drew heavily on Raymond Unwin’s site planning ideas, extolled the values of domestic neo-Georgian, and emphasised the value of studying the local vernacular (Fig. 1). For its part the Ministry of Health prodaced a set of standard designs for small houses in 1937, and in 1939 further strengthened its advice on sensitive but economical layout and modern design with another propagandising publication "7 While in theory section 12 of the 1932 Act offered powers of strict control, its permissive nature left local authorities to decide whether of not to exercise it. The factual operation of control was a time-consuming, technical and inevitably troublesome task and many local authorities, especially those with limited resources, opted to omit design provisions for these reasons, Furthermore, as Aberctombie noted, there was ‘no longer any need for the local authority to justify itself a competent to conttol elevations’ and ‘no obligation for the planning ‘committee to seek any guidance’ (as there had been under Circular 940) and design contral suffered as a result."* ‘A number of efforts were made between 1933 and 1935 to improve and rationalise the work of the panels and these revealed many tensions in the operation of the service, Their work was often seriously compromised by the fact that while the local authority was quite free to adopt a panel it was equally free to, ignore its advice. The practical experiences of architects working on or with panels varied from one extreme to the other but for all the discussion, debate, and reports that the panel system provoked the stark fact temains that, as late a5 1937, panels were only actively at work over one-third of the country, highly Concentrated in central, southern and south-eastern England.”A HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | 397 ‘What little evidence exists on the nature or success of the work of the panels is dominated by a very small number of key decisions which provoked criticism in the architectural press. The few examples of their work published reveal that all the elements preferred by the speculative house builder—narrow frontages, barge boards and hall timbering, gables, elaborate porches and varied window styles, foreign tiles’ or ‘pink asbestos slates —were stripped off in favour of simpler, wide-tronted, symmetrical houses, often with hipped rools, ‘Georeian windows! plain entrances and local ‘substantial’ materials (Fig. 1). In the few appeal cases Which are recorded, ‘harmonious development’ was very much @ watch-word with great attention paid to the qualities of the immediate locality Rather firmer evidence of disputes over design comes from the Ministry of Health Annual Reports. These show that, while the number of appeals on cesign and external appearance grounds doubled between 1934 and 1939 (46 to 81, they remained at about eight per cent of the total, and the Ministry recorded its general satisfaction that local authorities were operating the new provisions with discretion But the Royal Institute of British Architects was predictably less fenamoured with the system, A 1937 teport recorded that, though substantial improvement was evident in a number of areas, nearly half of England and Wales ‘was not yet subject to planning control at all, Furthermore, in ‘large areas the planning authorities do not, in practice, use their control of design powers; while those who do use thelr powers, do so in widely varying ways and often without any competent advice’ *" Naturally the report recommended the more widespread employment of qualified architects and architectural qualifications for the town planning officer controlling design (or alternatively the obligatory use of panels), but it also recommended the mandatory imposition of design control throughout the ‘country. Universal controls over development were not to be implementec until 1943, but the Ministry did argue for wider involvement of architects in. council housing schemes in Circular 1334 in 1933 and again in Circular 1697 five years later™ ‘THE KEY APPEAL CASES AND THE DEBATE OVER AESTHETIC CONTROL IN THE 1930s Balanced, leave alone objective, assessments of the workings of design control ‘were as rate in the 1930s as they are today, and the architectural journals had particular axes to grind In response to perceived threats to the profession. In many respects the debates of the period were the exact counterpart of the contemporary situation, but they were fuelled by a series of extraordinary incidents where conspicuously modem houses, designed by the young architects of the British modern movement, were modified or rejected by the local authorities and their panels, While the articles describing these events can easily be interpreted as a deliberate compilation of the most embarrassing evidence against design control itis instructive to note that at least a dozen of the most acclaimed 1930s buildings fell foul of the control system, and these instances must have inhibited patronage fof modern architects and the commission of modern designs. The controversies illustrated that the architectural profession itself was deeply divided on the ‘battle ‘of the styles’, The panels, largely composed of older establishment architects, had258 JOHN PUNTER Ke Vs 0s mshgrt 6 eB Fis | {above and opposite), Bay design gukance ond the wok ofthe paral concord tino he problem othe sein ati ang of naw housing in ttl aaa. cet shown hee Bete (5 cPRe napa Bt Did Dg Cate emp thes clemency expec the Shemgt to evsure beter proportions’ and more eppondate Matera snd were echoed ‘whence! the panels wee at woreA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | 359 Got Fon mage Boel 1 Fe hans 0 grape ranch a Ge Re Te360 JOHN PUNTER qs (ty Tis desl by Mess Tecton naseA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART 1 361 Fie 2 lonpotite The amos appeal case o 192425 reese the dsp pejuices aginst malem architecture Smonest bat cal eons and thee Arita AdMsry Pals (0) Ar ama sach or wht isc be dane Shoot ti seve nthe ey 10308 (4) Houses at Ml, the result of 2 lrg spe Bader tlsng an aehtecturl competion to bt ‘sched he ‘Sesto 3 {e) This was how the bulder modi the eshte su pore be 2 hs net ge Th he ate f]specslatve‘bucer woofer ator facade ea ar atest sb ‘apured n citar a) inpots into secuntve neusebaingussprotded by 3 ‘mpetston in ll Hil whic clea Mates the ‘sonetons betien 3) al362 JOHN PUNTER Es Bg BE | | a | 7 EAL ER (o)Osber Lancers ‘Gankers Geol Tf eelee||e () Arteta Asociation small house desgn compton Winger 122 Fe, 3 (cont) Osber Lancaster saw he humour inthe the ny wth thet NeoGeorgan coun house slmost inverted the associations wit gd taste (h) A desig fom the 1919 Hoag MaaA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | fea ctr Fi 4 Tyan Gavan exegesis of Gin eal Bd Manns i Aire (1924 itemise’ t ‘hiegprecd dese songs way Hones and tadonal ichiterts ta fun te neo-lsin Sec sees, cvs esgn and fhe unfrmiy. eatn. canirmiy and prope the rat Ente. ramsey fal ad (d) above were cited fr ther ‘zssanion of indus’ at ad of seg the pte hen clay gl Th na dion ah Hight ure te entra opel dey lan eden ots meng Lens Abecromble Tipp, sher and cer ie essed o Beaux As jet, Aes hd evr erento the laa groded Inthe wee othe Gest eof onda. Te ote Feraiabe feature lth pun es ks emphasis upon anew aerial oad networkond elebotely designed grade seperated inersecions 362364 JOHN PUNTER (a) The aplication of davahing contels in ies Ford end dens 1986 por nee (by Holder's 1954 suggested elevaona ramever for the are sumounding Se Pals Chad! rede one (6) Te end result of redveepment on open planning pinciles in the 1947 Hse Fg 5 (above and opposte. in contest with the cite design radon there was the technical. ‘Genta spproach othe tin problems ofthe conta ot bang bulk and dapghting in commer Tederelopmet The Hoen-Hotlod cepa (a fis: cacied the seem of ayighting se oor space Indios hat wos nconporatc no the wid applied Any Hantot fo k Redpmen Ctl (eth ested oper planning ch Ks emphasis pon vide celation and pon, segrsited Tan ses and eb and podium aeiecaral or But elevalonal controls woe retihd by Hold and Holden or the St Pac's ara (bende result vg dol cts, medloce and careceress Neo Georg’) Buklsbuty House (2, cpproved a 199s wes wel welcomed as tesking te tonghld of conseats inthe CY sh xed the ‘ry Hants open planning pinesA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART 1 365 {e) Bucklenbury House by Camptell ones. an ote development tht nonetheless wen great Schacter Ws mer design366 JOHN PUNTER little sympathy with the young modernists and took the opportunity to censure their work. More importantly, businessmen on planning committees were often similarly unsympathetic. and their arguments came to embrace much wider Questions than the effect of the proposed building upon its immediate context. Of the three most celebrated cases the ‘Ruislip’ appeal illustrated the prejudices of councils at their worst, while the Chipperfield example produced classic design compromise (a pitched roof on a flat roof design). The Cuckfield. case revealed conflicts between a conservative committee and a more enlightened panel, but was won by the developer at appeal (Fig. 2). But perhaps the most illuminating example was the tortuous approval system for the Highpoint Two apartment block in Highgate, London, which is the first fully recorded example of an architect's employment of design tactics and negotiation ploys to circumvent the dictation of extemal appearance (Fig. 4) 2" Since many of these buildings won widespread professional acclaim at the time, ‘occupy pride of place in histoties of modern architecture, and are now protected by listing, their difficult passage through the development control process brought the whole system into distepute. On the other hand, the majority were eventually approved, indicating that the appeal process served its purpose, But it was of great significance that lay committees actually preferred the ‘Tudorbethan’ and ‘By-Pass Variegated! styles of speculative suburbia, since the latter were the prime target of intense professional and upper middle class distaste throughout the 1930s (igs. | and 3). These events emphasised the gap between lay and professional tastes, but they also completely inverted one of the purposes of aesthetic control which was the promotion, not the discouragement, of the use of tained designers. While the architects’ attacks on the speculative builder were infused with @ certain degree of economic self-interest, since the design of private housing represented the largest potential source of new architectural work, the profession was fully justified in feeling aggrieved by the fact that literally hundreds. Of thousands of standard houses were approved without modification, while thelt fare commissions were frequently modified, or at best delayed, by the control process, ‘The denigration of the ‘make-believe domestic’ and ‘actitious susticty’ of the speculative house builder and his client seemed to focus on facade details like gables, barge boards, and half-timbering, while the Tudorbethan’ was particularly abhorred by professionals as an example of corrupt taste (Fig. 3). Read today some of the attacks on the late-Edwardian terrace, the Metroland semi-detached, or the Tudorbethan villa provoke only contemporary astonishment at the lack of historical awareness, the certainty of opinion, and the moral supeticrity of the professional.” The myopia of the tirades emphasises the cyclical natute of taste and the meaning and values that longevity, familiarity and association themselves bestow. It provides salutary lessons to’ commentators and contralets. alike However, the speculative builder had long recognised the importance of ‘facade investment’ as a means of subtly differentiating his product while retaining standardised floor plan and an economical and easy-to-build form. The more perceptive commentators noted that what the speculative builders and their Customers were doing was merely imitating the architects and their more affluentAISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART I oo clients of thirty years ealier. They understood why it was economically necessary for the speculative bullder to build for ‘Mr Average. and why excursions ae minority or informed taste were likely to end in financial disaster "Aces Gonsummer research tended to confirm the popularity of the ‘villa-type Heese despite professional abhorrence of its form (Fig. 3)2° But the atte one uee speculative builder was also an attack on public taste which was variously eyes tunspeakable, uninformed, gimmicky, nostalgic and imitative Throughout the inter-war period there were two favourite professional responses to this problem, The rst was a clarion call to edueate the pudlin: second was a resigned acceptance of the fact that ‘we get the archertine ve dserv! oF more accurately, we (the professionals) get the architecture thet tes {the public) deserve” Both responses were based on the argument that ral od General public possessed better taste, and demanded better architecture ara urban design, then matters would not improve, However. open’ citaca ot architecture, particularly the prospect of architects criticising other architects wor ‘seen as undermining the profession rather than raising public awsrenees. The famous 1930s appeal cases were so threatening to the profession procioey because one set of architects was often criticising the work of another thee ce how the defence of the profession largely stiled open debate and soughe Convenient external scapegoats. It was not until 1947 that | M. Richards ised the possibilty thatthe public might be more than passive reciplents of profession knowledge, and might actually participate in a small way in architecture, unten design and town planning. tn the end, the idea that a better educated public might produce better architecture and urban design remained no more then o Pious hope, It ignored the economic realities of building production, sal 'gnored the lack of consensus as to what actually constituted better design, but ft was a convenient means of evading responsibility for actually Improving, the general level of design ‘THE CASE FOR THE NEO-GEORGIAN STYLE AND ‘GOOD MANNERS’ IN DESIGN While many architects wanted to replace the speculative residential architecture With a full-blown modernism, the most common reaction was to advocate the eo-Georgian style as the best means of combatting the worst excesses of batt {he speculative builder and his aspiring middle class client (Fig. 3) Curiously, the «ase for wider adoption of the style was often linked with the case for nedem architecture. Summerson, Edwards, Sharp and others all noted the simpliciy, efficiency, lightness and clarity of Georgian styles in contrast with those of other revivals. © The campaign to install Georgian as tie housing style took many forme Raymond Unwin ensured its enduring importance by enchrining the style in the 1919 Housing Manual (forthe design of council housing) and Adshead, Ramsay. and Akercrombie all used it widely. if not exclusively, in their various planning schemes.” Adshead, among others, wrote propagandising articles and produced what were almost pattern books to promote the style. As Bentley suggests these Campalgners ‘wanted a style which could stand repetition without becoming aesthetically enervating’. Neo-Georgian adaptations dominated the prizes in all the strall house architectural competitions in the early part of the period (Fig. 3)368 JOHN PUNTER and only towards the late-1930s did more aspects of styles (usually fenestration} win approval.” While the Ministry was ‘not adverse to the adoption of a stronger Neo-Georgian treatment in local authority housing schemes, especially on the ‘main frontages. local authorities and their tenants seemed to prefer a ‘sham Picturesque’ architecture with all the dormers, gables and bays associated with the private sector.*” So universal became the use of neo-Georgian in housing, that it became identified with council housing and hence impossible for the spec-builder to use asa facade treatment.” The last thing that the new owner-occupiers wanted was a house that could be mistaken for those allocated to the economically-secure working classes, and it remains a singular irony and an important lesson that efforts to impose supposed good taste through an ‘approved style’, merely reinforced reactions against It ‘A certain professional reaction ensued against the widespread use of ‘Sankers’ Georgian’ and at the near-universal use of the style for post offices (Fig. 3). But in the stylistic confusion of the 1920s and 1930s a stripped classic or Neo-Grec’ style (as it was often described) held its popularity for major public or commercial buildings" Beaux Arts architecture and civic design retained their appeal amongst many architectural proponents of aesthetic control and town planning, the 1942 Royal Academy Plan for London being the best example (Fig. 4)” But the picturesque tradition imported by Raymond Unwin from Germany, and applied in Hampstead Garden Suburb (and promulgated in Town Planning in race), maintained its influence especially in suburban design * But the proponents of formality waged a more successful campaign under the watchwords of harmony, order, forebearance and restraint in design control. This, ‘was, in part, a campaign against both the effects of commercial redevelopment, and the growth of suburbia, but It was also an attempt to end the Victorian and Edwardian stylistic excesses. Arthur Trystan Edwards, who was to become the leading spokesman of the ‘formality’ school, used a critique of romantic, picturesque architecture and town planning as his starting point. He took it upon himself not only to search for new standatds of criticism and canons of taste, but also to develop some principles for architectural control. Good and Bad Manners in ‘Architecture was an attack upon both detached suburbia and its idiosyncrasies, and upon the functional aesthetic (Fig. 4)."" The title reflects a supposed parallel between the etiquette of Individual behaviour in polite society, and the design of, individual buildings in cities, which Trystan Edwards was ford of drawing, and. ‘which makes the book such a period piece. He sought the rudiments of a ‘street, architecture’ and, true to form, he found it in the Georgian architecture of London's Great Estates (Fig. 4) Tt would be easy to trivialise these ideas, but they reflected both a wide body of Informed opinion at the time and, more importantly, provided some clues as to ‘what the principles of one kind of control of external appearance might be. Of all the values expressed by the lay public in control matters, conformity to the existing character of the street is perhaps the clearest even today. Many commentators have drawn attention to the collectivist ethic which partially underlay the search for order and formality, Some have traced it back to the ArtsA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART 1 369 and Crafts Movement and seen its ideas as a foundation for planning and aesthetic control. But the concepts of social order and social contrcl which underlay the work of Edwards, Sharp and many others, and which are emphasised by the language they adopted, had much more of a reactionary fervour in a desite to re-impose ‘old values’ and ‘visual order’ on architecture, town planningand the city. Further evidence for this may be found in the proceedings of the Georgian Society formed, as an offshoot to the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, in 1937.” Its notions of aesthetic control clearly were aimed more at the re-creation of an older order (of the Great Estates) than they were based on a recognition of the new social and economic forces that were making such a vision ‘an impossible dream. For ‘good manners’ and ‘good taste’ one had to return to the eighteenth century. Control could ‘enly be applied by the spontaneous moral force ‘rom all people desiring order’ as one commentator expressed it“ There was never any real hope of convincing the majority of the priority of the cause: it was up to the architectural profession to raise the standard of design through educat on and control. Lionel Brett, though writing in the jaundiced days of the early. 1950s, caught the conservative mood of design control in the inter-war period exactly’ the machinery ... {for censoring the appearance of buildings} ... is ot just another bit of 1945 socialism. It dates ... from the golden age of private ‘enterprise ... it is... closely related with georgian poetry and folk music, and is part of the great middle brow conspiracy of the age of lazz to corceal its ‘own vulgarity ... it was a very decent homespun kind of authority tat was envisaged, as befitted the England of Stanley Baldwin rather than that of Stafford Cripps. Trajan lettering for shop fascias, dark green paint for petral pumps and above all ‘local materials’ were the watchwords, and it wes never baldly stated, though it was certainly implied, that the neo-Georgian style would guarantee a pass." Efforts at aesthetic control exemplified the conservative-escapist side of upper- middle-class values, and in general, educated and informed taste played a more important role in the ‘rampage against the values and taste of the lower orders’ and against builders as ‘vindictive monsters’, than did the architectural establishment. in the wider campaign the elitism of the ‘cultured selfish’ was exemplified in books like Britain and the Beast and the scom of writers like Lawrence, Betjeman, Isherwood, Auden and Marshall far exceeded that expressed in architectural journals. In these writings what was ultimately at stake can be clearly identified—mass enjoyment of suburbia, exurbla and the countryside threatened the privileged enjoyment of those fortunate enough already to be in possession of such positional goods. Upper-middle-class support for planning control has always been based upon using it as a means of controlling the unpleasant. externalities of @ system from which that class have already benefited. This is a criticism that can always be levelled at the control of external appearance, especially when It is detached from other considerations. While it is important to remember that aesthetic campaigners like Unwin and Burns, and later Aneurin Bevan (the post-war Labour Minister of Health], sought explicitly tox70 JOHN PUNTER ‘obtain for the masses the amenities enjoyed by the few, aesthetic control in the snter-war period hardly displayed such a preoccupation. it remained ‘a decorative appendage’, discrediting architectural planning in the process."* It is easy to find arrogant disregard of the social aspects of planning in the priority accorded to the visual/aesthetic aspects—the way the preservationist design concerns of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act often seemed to obliterate the necessity for radical improvement of, and additions to, the stock cf rural cottages was an obvious example. But the development of character zoning, layout standards and the fast-developing technical approach to daylighting and sunlighting (see below} were indications that control was attempting to grapple ‘with wider environmental issues and with living and working conditions, Certainly ‘one of the clearest themes to emerge in the period was the tension between the vigilant local authorities seeking to extend their powers of control, and central government always secking to restrain the exercise of those powers to the prevention of outrages’ role or the ‘setious disfigurement’ cases. Furthermore, there was already tacit acceptance of a two-tier system with the full exercise of control envisaged primarily for places of natural beauty or historic town centres. ‘The importance of advice, guidance, discussion and negotiation in matters of aesthetic control had been recognised and a positive role for design gu dance, with its emphasis upon economical layout, visual form, traditionalernacular ‘materials and stylings, good proportion and a minimum of decoration had been clearly established. While no statutory role for the public to participate in such aesthetic control issues had been established, the Ministry had always teccgnised a role for interested civic societies and expressed the desire that control should reflect local wishes. However, whatever verdict one may wish to draw of the frst three decades of the contral of éxternal appearance of development in England and Wales, one fact is, certain; the operation of control embraced only a fraction of the country. Even as Tate as 1939 less than half of the country operated interim development control (with or without design control), less than one fifth had the benefit of architectural advice (in the form of active advisory panels), while less than one-fiftieth was covered by town planning schemes.” Control itself had a negligible effect upon most private residential development, though the by-laws still exerted a dominant influence upon the density, spacing and layout of dwellings. In central areas redevelopment may have been dictated by set-back, daylighting and height restrictions but, unless the local authority were executing the development. it could exert little control beyond that. It was only public developments—civic centres, post offices and council estates—which bore the indelible stamp of the "approved taste’ of the period (Figs. 3 and 5}. 1939-1947: The development of comprehensive town planning ‘There were signs that external appearance issues were losing their importance in planning matters well before the onset of the Second World Wat, Regional planning and reconstruction became of central concer as a response to widespread unemployment in the North and spectacular surburban expansion inA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART 1 an the South, and the war itself gave these considerations great impetus. The 1944 ‘White Paper, The Control of Land Use, matked the new emphasis with the synthesis of physical, economic and social pianning and national planning objectives. The tuniversal adoption of interim development control procedure in 1943 allowed local authorities to take immediate enforcement action against development which was contrary to planning proposals. The 1944 Act conterted positive land acquisition powers for reconstruction, and the power for the Minister to ‘ist’ buildings of special architectural and historic interest. The extension of planning control to all land brought a shift in focus, if not a dramatic change of procedure, ‘but issues of amenity and aesthetic control had become of secondary importance, ‘THE EMERGENCE OF THE TECHNICAL APPROACH TO THE CONTROL OF EXTERNAL APPEARANCE One facet of this changing preoccupation was the emergence of a primarily technical-quantitative approach to the control of commercial redevelopment, growing out of a critique of nineteenth-century by-laws. There were prolonged campaigns to introduce questions of extemal appearance into redevelopment even in the 1920s, the redevelopment of Regent Street being the most notable example. However, since town planning schemes were rarely applied to city centres (London, for example, did not initiate a scheme until 1937 and the Chief Architect saw a tiny proportion of schemes to advise on), the pursuit of design control rarely developed to any significant extent. By-laws controlled the construction, height. set-back and proportion of curtilage, and many writers saw them as 2 straitjacket preventing civic design initiatives in central areas, At least fourteen towns and cities (including London) passed special legislation to suspend them, but this proved to be an even less flexible approach since it then required an Act of Parliament to amend them. In general the by-laws were less of a problem than might be imagined since they were frequently amended at the local level, and the Local Government Board kept the model by-laws very much up to date. These were progressively informed with Unwin's Ideas on density controls and Trystan Edwards’ sunlighting criteria, ‘A further problem, particularly with commercial development, was the law of ancient lights which protected building owners from loss of daylight as a result of, development on neighbouring sites. Related legal cases spurred on the development of daylight-measuring techniques, work that was also being. undertaken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) in sefies of illumination research technical papers. Suggestions where made that such codes should be developed to accompany the 1932 Act, but the Ministry of, Health model clauses maintained the traditional character zone, height and daylight restrictions." It required the impetus of war damage and the prospect of, large-scale redevelopment to intensify the search for comprehensible methods of regulating height, spacing, and daylighting of buildings in city centres. The DSIR produced a series of building studies for the Ministry of Works and continued its work on developing daylighting protractors for measurement purposes. The Building Research Station extended this into consideretions of layout, plan forms and floorspace indices and direct cooperation developedan JOHN PUNTER between engineers of the DSIR and planners at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to synthesise this work and to simplify the methods of analysis into a workable, easily understood method of contro). Some of the new daylighting ideas, were enshrined in the 1944 Dudley Report on the Design of Housing, but more significantly they formed the bases of the 1947 Advisory Handbook on the Redevelopment of Central Areas, which was to becorne the pattern book for the post- ‘war central area redevelopment until at least the mid-1960s** The Advisory Handbook had other roots, most notably the Ministry of Health model clauses of 1934, and the Neal Report on Estale Development and Managentent Proflems in War- Damaged Areas, which introduced the idea of segregated land uses and ‘orderly redevelopment In suitable planning units. Most ofall the handbook reflected the ‘work of two ofits authors, Charles Holden and William Holford, who had been at work since 1944 on a report on Reconstruction in the City f London, and developing 2 system of floorspace indices and block development for commercial redevelop- ment (Fig. 5). It was these latter ideas, rather than the elaborate civic design schemes for St Paul's Precinct, or the important conservation/character mainte: ance provisions in the plan, which were to prove of national significance The Advisory Handbdok retained the all-important concept of ordering land uses into segregated precincts, In the place of a civic design tradition of controlled. clevations it relied upon floorspace indices, daylight regulations, and an emphasis, lupon ventilation, open space and private car parking. The importance of amenity. Ingenious location, and the design of open spaces were underlined, but in the illustrations maps and block madels were used and a conscious effort made to avoid illustrating elevations (a traditional ministerial aversion). Advice on external, ‘appearance introduced the vague notions of balance, continuity and cohesion to ‘accompany the traditional value of harmony, and mentioned the importance of deferring to context in historic areas, but the rest was essentially familiar. It emphasised freedom for the developer, and the inadvisability of devising detailed schemes to control architectural design, and it recommended that both planning uthority and developer should be advised by a competent architect. It saw the latter's skills as more important than any controls.” ‘One prominent architect-planner bemoaned this new emphasis as the substitution of arithmetical and valuation controls for those of civic design’. However, one of the main reasons for developing such controls was to improve the working conditions of office workers in the city centres, revealing the tension between the needs of a bullding’s occupants and the impact of the building upon the locality which is sometimes at the heart of the problem of design contro. tn any event, the development of the technical approach to the regulation of three- Gimensional form had virtually no impact on development in the inter-war period [save for the incorporation of these ideas in the work of a handful of progressive architects). But it was to have a most profound effect upon the townscape of post-war Britain, in particular upon London and the blitzed provincial cities.| A HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | 373 ‘The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act and the 1948 General Development Order Whereas the preamble to the 1932 Act emphasised the protection of -ural and architectural amenities, the preamble to the 1947 Act stressed the imposition of development control and supplemented the 1943 powers for acquisition and development of land and the recoupment of betterment. Lord Silkin, the Labour Minister of Town and Country Planning. in a debate over the new Bill. stressed that ‘town and country planning ... is a much bigger problem than one of mere amenities’ ”® While the 1947 Town and Countey Act implemented many of the principal recommendations of the Scott and Uthwatt reports, it said surprisingly little about the control of external appearance, and it was hardly mentioned in the debates. Development works which were defined as ‘nat materially affecting] the external appearance of the building’ (s. 12 |I] [al) were excluded from requiring planning permission.”* So, by implication, works which did affect extemal Appearance required permission. Aside from the necessity to ‘have regard to the provisions of the development plan’, local authorities were to take ‘any other ‘material considerations’ into account in deciding whether or net to grant planning permission. While legal textbooks saw material considerations as embracing all the national amenity and aesthetic concerns the legislation offered no precise guidance" However in the provision for the General Development Order (s. 13 [3] lal) the Act stated that ‘Where permission is thereby granted for the erection, extension or alteration of any buildings (any development may) require the approval of the local planning authority to be obtained with respect to the design or external appearance thereof ‘The 1948 General Development Order did not exempt ftom control either any alterations to a dwelling house, or gates, fences or walls abutting the highway.”* Even with generally exempted developments (such as industrial plant, develop- ment under private Acts, railway, dock, water, gas, electricity, road and mineral undertakings), if the alterations affected the external appearance of bulidings or premises they could be controlled. Despite Lord Silkin's comments, the 1947 Act made actual reference to amenity four times. On each occasion the powers provided related to specific subjects — the discontinuance of uses and removal of buildings, the preservation of trees and woodlands, the control of advertisements, and the proper maintenance of waste land. Although the concept of amenity was nowhere defined, It was again assured that, in considering any application for planning permission, every local planning authority would take into account the ‘interests of amenity’. The government emphasised that the ‘usefulness’ of the development was the primary considera: tion but the phrase ‘injurious to amenity’ first coined in 1914, rapidly established itself as the most frequently-cited reason for the refusal of planning permission °° ‘One important factor to keep in mind was the assumption that under a Labour government the majority of post-war development would in fact be executed byam JOHN PUNTER Jocal authorities themselves. The Ministry considered that direct local authority involvement in. redevelopment schemes would produce a greater sense of architectural unity and civic design. The strengthening of the listed building provisions in the Act (as well as the inclusion of tree preservation and Fdvertisement control clauses) was seen as a move towards ensuring more Sympathetic and harmonious development. But no provisions were made to Sequre’ the local planning authority to avail itself of architectural expertise, and the Ministry remained reluctant to legislate architectural standards, preferring to ‘encourage’ local authorities to seek expert advice.” So the initiative rested, as it hhad always done, with the local authorities, 19471953: The Act in operation and wnder pressure ‘The extension of development control to all land under the 1947 system transformed the nature of planning practice and established aesthetic control throughout town, suburb and countryside. However, the definition of develop- ment in the General Development Order was tightly drawn. It was framed before the Act came into force, and the block provisions it gave erred on the side of caution. While conceding that minor developments caused much offence, the Ministry recognised that their control took a disproportionate amount of ‘administrative time. So, in 1949, the Minister issued a circular (69/49) asking local Guthorities not to be to tigid In thelr decisions of planning applications ‘But mote fundamental revisions were required and in 1950 the Minister revised both the General Development Order and the Use Classes Order to allow householders to carry out minor alterations, extensions and improvements to their houses without having to apply for permission; there was considerable ‘opposition generally from planners. Landscape Areas (Special Development) Orders provided the means of retaining control over agricultural and factory buildings in the frst three national parks, but the Minister refused to extend these powers to all of them of to the second tier (rural) conservation areas proposed by the Hobhouse Committee, One further relaxation of controls occurred over the ‘question of the siting of houses in country districts, This issue generated more ‘Sppeals in 1950 than any other, and more flexibility and discretion in dealing with such applications was called for in a ‘Note’ issued in 1950.” However aesthetic Control was still effectively being used as a social filter for the exurban migration In its report of 1951 the Ministry echoed and generalised the Advisory Handbook con the Redevelopment of Central Aveas’ approach to design control to the courtry as & hole. The report made the fundamentally important point that the ministerial function was primacily appellate, Thus its advice could only be enforced when an ‘aggrieved developer took a refusal of planning permission, or an undetermined. pplication, to appeal. The report also stressed the importance of pre-application, Suvice, the utility of design guidance, as well as the use of architectural advisory panels (which were revived and revised in 1950) and the Royal Fine Art Commission (given a wider critical role In 1946). But it also emphasised the limits ff conttol and the dangers of compromise designs, noting that higher quality of Gesign ‘must depend on the growth of aesthetic taste and architecturalA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | a5 appreciation’. echoing a view expressed by the Ministry of Health in 1927. ‘The restrictive and cumbersome nature ofthe 1948 General Development Order was only one aspect of a growing disaffection with planning that was widely expressed in the architectural journals from 1949" onwards, The roots of architectural disaffection lay in the system of building lieences, which effectively stifled the flow of private commissions, but as early as December 1949 Lionel Brett was recording how ‘the planners’ were becoming convenient scapegoats for all unpopular development proposals" From 1950 onwards this disaffect on was fuelled by the actual evidence of architectural and urban design quality resulting from the system ‘CRITICISMS OF THE RESULTS OF CONTROL ‘The 1951 Festival of Britain provided the public with their frst glimpse of the potentialities of comprehensive redevelopment and modern architecture, with precinct planning and the application of ‘townscape’ ideas, with well-designed street furniture and comprehensive uroan landscaping But the average quality of new architecture and redevelopment failed to live up to these high standards The first targets of criticism were the new office buildings in the City of London. ‘The fact that they were commissioned by the Ministry of Works (the department responsible for the issuing of building licences) made them an especially relished target, and even the Minister conceded that they were ‘fat and familiar, mediocre and characterless neo-Georgian architecture (Fig. 5). However. more modern, functional designs for major office buildings to the east of St Paul's were rsjected in favour of more neo-Georgian perimeter buildings, emphasising the continuity with control values in the inter-war era.” To emphasise the point, controversy also ensued over the adoption of neo-Georgian styles in London's post-war public housing, further encouraging the London County Council's Architect's Depart- ment to embrace the ideals of the Congrés Internationaux Architecture Moderne (clam The same general criticisms were also in evidence in early evalvatione of the rebuilding of the blitzed provincial cities, and an immediate sense of disappoint- ment overrode the best intentions of reviewers to make allowances for the problems of managing redevelopment under a new planning system in a period of austerity Generally developers conformed to the ‘aesthetically null if purely imaginary model projects in the Advisory Handbook’ Councils would sutline the heights and general massing of building blocks, with sites let on a building agreement and detailing leit to the architects who ‘were given reasonable freedom providing the elevations were capable of complementary treatment in adjoining blocks’. But the practical difficulties of development—negotiations, funding and material availability in patticulat—were all compounded by the aesthetic difficulties * A large patt of the problem was correctly attributed to disagreements within the architectural profession itself about the lack of a common idiom, Many architects remained very critical of aesthetic contral, the skills of the officers practising it, and the dilution and mediocrity it was said to produce, More discerning critics of, the system noted that the debate was blurred by conflating a wide range of | LEE316 JOHN PUNTER ‘controls like building licences, regulations and by-laws with aesthetic control per Se" But with a Conservative government set to remove the restrictions on private development, aesthetic controls were likely to play an even more minor role in a more telaxed development control system Conclusions ‘The 1947 Act may be seen as establishing a near-comprehensive system of control of design and external appearance, There were crucial omissions (exemptions for Sericulture, the operational requirements of statutory undertakers, and develop ment by Government departments and the like). but for the vigilant local authority development control could effectively dictate external appearance within the jimits of ministerial tolerance. That tolerance was always closely proscribed by Government circulars, and the detailed control was very short lived. But the powers first sought by Ruislip-Northwood in 1914 were now universally available, ffthe principles for the practice of aesthetic control were in no sense ccdified, the ‘Advisory Handbook certainly suggested a partial system for central area redevelopment, and the Design of Dwellings manual, though aimed at the public Sector, did likewise for residential areas. The hope was that the county councils might develop adequately skilled staff who ‘ably abetted by Ministetal advice’ ould be able to develop a practice of control of design and external appearance Appropriate to the local authority and reflecting local wishes. While unelected Tocal bodies or private individuals had no legal means of making representation to local authorities, it was generally accepted that the latter would receive such representation. just as it was ‘accepted’ that they would be heard at apreals. To all jntents and purposes the system of control of external appearance current today had been established NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Burns, john 1908 Palmncary Oats, 4th series, Val 188, Col. 949; quoted in Ashworth, WT Gane of Modere Town Planting, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul 1954, p. 183: Miner. Te the Housing, Town Planning Etc. Act 1909 ‘he Planner, 60.1974, pp, 66-680 2 Aldridge, H.R, The Cas or To Pansing London. National Housing and Town Planning Council, 1915, 9.458 “PAshworth Wop cit, pp. 188-188. 4 Aldridge th & op. pp. 337590. In the second scheme promoted” by Rulslip-North- ‘wood efforts were made fo Include a portion of the bulleup tea of Northwood in. order to fensure amenity by securing the tidiness of fgedens. and) restricting. shopping areas Flowever, the Local Government Board ejected these clauses: Aldridge, H.R. op lt, 349. Birmingham south (1525) 1s the only other planning scheme known to have attempted to Control design, repetition of design or materials with the same type of clayse as. Ruislip Haywood, W. Conte! of design: scope and ‘method. url of ie Toe Planes Inst, 12 1926p 5 the Town Planning Committee of the Royal Institute of British Architests expressed feat concern at the dearth of architectural {volvement and issued advice to members of the profession: “Architects and Town Develop- rent ras the Real asta of rts Archies, 23,1916, pp. 7-21; Chery. . The Eaton of Brush own Planning, Leighton. Buzard. Leonard Hil, 1974, pp. 72-86; Pepler. G. L, Twenty OneA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | Years of Town Planning in England ancl Wales Toure f the Toon Planning Tas, 17.1931, PB. -8r % Liverpool Corporation Act 1921. ch, 74 Newcastle upon Tyne Corporation Act 1925, ch fo2, ‘Architectural contol in. English. Towns hts bara 7210p 38-319 Cond ff elevations of buildings Journal of the Tam Sang ae 131986938 7'See_ also. "The Oded Town Planning scheme’ Aries Journal 62,1925, p89. '§ Ministy of Health, Town Dliting—Made Clases 1923-1938, London, HMSO. 1923: Elgood. FM. The Model Clauses: buildings and building ines: their application in Town Plsn- ring schemes ural the Tew Plan state 10,1924, pp. 151-162, 185-197: Bruce. RG, "The Model Clauses: convenience and ameniy’ oer af the Toon Blan insta, 10, 1928p. 237— 244, Bath Corporation Act 1925, ch 93; Hud, P Parliament ahd Whitehall what they can and cannot do: the power of the schoolroom ‘acct lol, 68,1928. pp, 685-687, Control ‘of Design in Bath ural ofthe Town Planing Isat 3, 1926, pp. 123-124 9 binistry of Health, Annual Rep 1926-7. London, HMSO. p. 64 Ministry of Health {relat 736: Housing (Rural Wares} At London, ‘inity of Healt, 1927: Councll for the Preser ‘ation of Rul England/Royal Institute of British ‘Architects, aie Cound fo the Pesan of Bul nglol and Raye nate of Bris Arcitecs ‘Advony Poel Schone, 1928, eprinted in lack, © "The working af the Advisory Panels System Iona of the Ragl site of Bish Aches, 36 1929, pp. 767-168; Ministry of Health, Circular ‘0, London, Minlsry of Healt, 1928, Ache Ioural (ed "The greatest probiem ofall: what feaestheve contol”, arclads lwenal 7.1928, pe. 693-701, Warwick P. H. and fobnson, | T. ‘Control of Elevations in Practice’ oureal othe ‘own Planing stu 18,1952, pp. 155-167 TO The Committe of Taste mentioned by Richardson, AE, In discussion of a paper by Lethaby, W. Rs “Architecure and Cielisation aural of i Royal Tw Panning este, 241917 88, see also Scot, M, Aeron City Ping Siar 1890, Berkeley. University of Calta Press, 1969, pp. 4-46 et. subsea, "A Commis: sion of Fine AR Ariat ourna 36.1923. p 834, Forrest G.\ Topham. “The. Architectural Development of American Cities, ural of the Royal Inte of Bish Arcites, 32.1923. pp 499-485, ‘Repot ofthe Royal Fine At Commis- Si oral fi Royal sta of sk Artes, 317 36, 1928, pp. 150-152; The New Warrant ofthe Fogal Fine Act Commission, Jounal of fe Royal Instat of rsh Arcee, 41,1935, pp. 839-840; Edwards. A Tpstan, The Fine Arts Commission! ‘ow Planing Raver, 11,1973, 98 TH “The Royal Fie Ar Comission’ burl of the Royal nse of isk recs, 43,1936, 211-272, See alsa recent articles onthe role of ‘he commission: Cantacuaino, S, "The Changing Role ofthe Royal Fine Art Commission own ant Country Panning Summer Sea The Plan 1985, pp. 34-55. Stamp. G. “Official Aesthet cs. The ‘Specter, 13 November 1982, pp, 26-30, 12 Edwards. AT op. cit, pp. 97-I0l. Stamp, Gop. ct. 13 Sheail,). Rural Consenation in ier War Beta, Oxord, Clarendon Press, 1931.” pp. ‘Ta74; Chery, GE, op.elt, p98, Town and CCounety Planning Act 1932” ch. 48, London, HMO. 1 Abercrombie, P. The Town and Country Planning Act and te Countesidelounal of he “Toon Planing Iau 19. 1933, p. 98 Thomson ‘TF, ‘Notes on the Regulation ofthe design and ftemal appesrance of Buildings ours of the “Town Plawing ste 21, 1935, p. 334 15 Orontes,‘Conttl of Elevations, Jura of he Town Pang nse, 77,1933 8. 33 16 Roberts, A L. ‘The Panel Stor: how it works Avid Journal, 87.1938. p. 324. The ‘ishigurement wording is derived fom the Bath clause of 126, 17 Peak District Advisory Panel, Housig ie the Pet Dit, Sheteld, Councll forthe Presera slon of Rutel England, 1934, Cheshize Advisory Panel, Bldgs In Chest, Chester, Counll for the Preservation of Rutal England. 1939, ays, ‘Tand Thoméon, T, Panels and Preseration (I) an experiment at ‘Witney, Arce oul, 73, 1931, pp. 20-22; Warwick: P.H. and Johnson | Topait. pp. 159-160, ‘Lake District Arehtectue ral Advisory Pano Tov Planning Raw, 15,1932 . IS, Counell for the Preservation of Rural EnglenaRoyal Insitute of British Architects, “the work goes forward. Actes’ foal, $5, 1927, . 661: Swenarton, M. Homes Fi for Hewes. London, Heinemann, 1981; Edwards. AM, The Design of Suluria. London. Pembge Press. 19BI, pp. 84-145; Ministry of Health, Houses we Leia, London, HMSO. 1939, See also rote 30. 18 Tack C. Hop cit p 484; Abercrombie, P. (1933), 0p. cpp. 98-98. 19 Tock. GH. op ct, pp 483-499; Roberts, A. LL. op. cit. pp’ 935-936. Ramsey. $. 2, ‘The ‘Aichitect and’ housing by the speculative bul-378 JOHN PUNTER Ger. W The Profession—speculative building fad the panel system una of he Rael state if rth Acts, 43, 1986, pp. 242-265, Wil Coats, What is to be done about this: 15: ‘dvsory Arhitecutal Panels, Aviat furs 18,1933, pp. 89-90, "90 Ministry of Health, Annual Rapes, 19334 1934-5. 1995-6, 1936-7. 1938-9, London, HMSO "itis Important to note that once 3 planning scheme wae adopted the appecl pro- fedures were hancled by a Royal Institute of Biitish Architects arbitrator and didnot involve the Ministry, Given the few planning schemes fully adopted the numberof appesls may not have been very much great "I Royal naitute of Btsh Architect, Public Relations Committee, The Control of design ‘onder Town Planning, laura f he Rael stitute Of Bik rect, 45 1938. pp. 337-340. 23> Ministry of Health, Cheular 1334: Housing (Fivancal rons) At 1933, London, Ministry of Health, 1934 Ministry of Health, Circular 1697 Housing (Fanci Prowsns) Ac 1938, London. Minty of Health, 1937; Goss, A. The Avge Gand Toun Planing, London, Royal Insitute of Bihish Architects, 1965. p. 39. 23 Jackson. Ay The Pais of Arcicture, Lon= don, Wehtectural Press, 1970, especialy 9p Serio, Yorke. F. R.'S. “The Modem English Housel Atul Ravi, 80.1986, pp. 237-202; Dean. B, The Tiles: Reali te Enaish Acitectac fal Sane London, Tef0l Books. 1983, pp. 33 53-36, ‘The. Ruislip Case: The full History, Iced lourial. 79, 1938, pp. 785-789, “The Chipperield. “Case. another "house ejected. ‘cht ural, 80, 1934, pp. 406—408: Coe, P. fad Reading, M, Lat onl Teton: Archie tnd Socal Committe, London. Ans Council 1981 pp. L30-I3: The Cuckfield Case: the full histo, Aree Journal, 1, 1933, po, 154-156, 34 ode Flats in’ Highgate Ardtctra Rejey. 84, 1938, pp. 161-176, Coe, P. and Reading, Mop. elt pp. 152-158 "25 "Paesing Cazes in domestic architecture, Antes real 35, 1912, p. 292 ‘Factitious Rusticty, Aries Juraal, 35, 1912. p. 395; ‘Common faults in the preparation of Town Dlanning Schemes, Avis aural, 4, 1919, 1p. 364365, Professional abhorrence of the ‘Redor was widely expressed. see Acids Jura {eos} Doing it In Tudor, Att Towra. 75 [932, p. 3-An amusing response to this is *Yeman Doing in Tudor, Arts ural. 1922. p. 94 See also Bland, K W. lery Building reat [onal 76, 192, p. 767 26, Loyd, Nathaniel, quoted in The Greatest problem ofall What i aesthetic contol? and ‘Committees: lay ard professoral’, Aces Iournl 65 1928, pp 99 and 694-655; Ramsey. Cu hat isto be done aboot this? 3: Building ‘without Guidance’. Arkiv loura, 77.1933, pp. {o3s204, Lloyd, T/A, The Architects and hous Ingby the spective bude oral of he Royat Teste of ish Arces, 41,1938, pp. 385-392, Parkes, CB, The Architect and housing by the Specolative builder, loral of the Bog Ista of Bris arta, $1, 1938, pp. 814-318, The most spirited and sympathetic defence of the sper Builder came much aller: see felley. FoR. ‘Subvibaniy Afieds ural 60, 1924, po. 75-798. On consumer research. see "The ‘Architect and Housing by the speculative bul: (et, fret of te Raye ste of ish cites, ‘44 [997 pp. 298-302 See also Ball Nt, Housing Paley aed zona Power. London, Methuen 1983, pp, 136-143. "et Lethaby, WR, Architecture nl Chis tion, ouva the Real Bish cites. 24, 917, 1p 61-90, especially pp. 225-235 (lscussion) Tid Summer of Tbstone, ‘The Fublie and the ‘Architect, ural of he Royal rite of Baitish ‘Arches, 30,1924, pp. 580~584 Ie cual practice. the afchitect's responsibilities the views ofthe profession, Avec? four. 68,1928, pp ‘For=T13, especially p. 13; Abts lourat feds). The Public Teste, Ariets Journal. 7, 1932,» 426, ‘Propaganda and ten planning. ‘Archiv Journal 95,1942, pp. 71-12; wilco, CoB, ‘Education in. the appreciation of Srciteture Ave Toura, 10, 1942. 9,124 "28 Richards, | M, “Architectural expression’ Atte loural. 103, 1947, pp. 277-279 and Richards, JM. ‘Architecture and the Common Many Arcite Journal 107, 1948, pp. 192— 133, See also Layman, A, What Is tobe done about this? 17. Whete the architect ais. Arca Towra 78, 1933, pp. 152-153. 29 stamp, G. (1979), op. ci, p. 5. See also note 37 "30 Budden, LB, “The stardardisation of clements of design in domeste architecture’ ‘Tom Planning Reve, 6. 1916, pp. 222-225, and ‘Adshead, SD, The standard cottage, Town Planing Revie, 6, 1916, pp. 244-249. Similar fticles appeared in 2 sees in the Arcitctia Fass in 1906. For the manuals, see House of Gommons Command 9191 (vi. Rew of the Commitee. ik Comoe wih he powsion of Gielngs for the wong cases... (The Tudor ‘Walters Report), London. HSC. 1918: MinistryA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | (of Health, Local Government Board, Manual on the preparation of Suteaed fusing schemes, Lor or, HMSO, 1919, "3 Olver. et al, Dunraam: he suburb sot dis enomis, London, rte and lenkins, (981 ‘op cit, pp. 62-76 especialy p. 69; Swenarton IM. op ct. pp, 62-66. Examples of competitions Include Suburban house competion”. Aries unl 38, 1913, pp. 129-131. Fy, E Manel "What i to be done about this? & The Building Centre competition Arctic lowna. 77,1933, pp. 600-600 The transition toa vague modern Fam I enident in "AA Competition Reviewed Prete Journal, 78, 1933, pp 378-380. 32 Swenarton. Mop cit. pp. [46-155 53 ‘Architectural cont on 2 Lverpoo! Estate, Alas Journal. 77, 1933, pp. 687-688 Ball. op cit. p17, 3A Lancaster, OA. Cartoon History of vhtctre, Landon, john Murty, 1964, 20.146 143; Wellesley, Lord G, “Recent Post Office Architecture: Artes Jura, 6, 1926, pp. = 77, Stamp, G. (1979) op et, pp. 2-25. 58 Lancaster HV. Town and County: Some Aspects of Town Planaing, Jounal of the Rayl Insta af Brisk Arce, 16, 1909, pp. 287-282 ‘A practlesl application is exemplified by The Remodelling of Pecadlly Chews, Arde and ules Jur, 32.1910, pp. 514 et subsea, For the Royal Academy Plan. see Aslan, N. The RA Plan for Landon’ Avie Jownal 96, 1942, Bp 261-210. 36 Collins, G. Rand Collin, C €, ‘Camillo site reaporaised in Kain, Re: al. Plating fr Conzeaton, London, Mansel, 198, pp. 63-73 Unwin. R. Tow Planning in Price, London, Fisher Unwin, 1909, pp. 15-139 ‘7 Edwards, A Tystan, Gael and Bad Manners In” Aecture, London, Philip Allen. 1924 Edvard, A. Trysian, Acitectual Sige London, Faber and Guyer, 1936, Abercrombie, P. Review Of “Good and Bad Manners in Architectre ‘Arcs loual 60,1924, p. 596. Sharp The ‘Town and. Country Planning Act—The”Pro- sector? archi’ ural, 77, 193, 423. Sharp. ‘T"Waat (to be done about this? The Cappy Layout. Antes Jura 78.1933. pp. 14-116. Sharp. awn and Couninsie, Oxord. Oxford Univesity Press 1931, pp. 135-224 especially» ea 38 stamp. G. “tictain inthe Thities elitectral Dean, 4, 1979, pp. 4-3 139 The Georgian Group, Fist Ammo! Repo, London, 1938, The Georgian Group, Report 1948, London. (944, pp. 3-7 379 40 Rayson, T, ‘Conttl of Elevations Arcs lure, 7 1981, 618: Actes our {eds}, ‘Control f Elevations. Arce Jura, 14,1931, p 351 4 Bret L, ‘Second thoughts on Planning! Royal state fish Artur, 57, 1949, 42 Willams-ElsC. fed), Brin and ie Bs Letchworth, Temple Press. 1938, See aso The ‘hits: 8 al been sad before Arteta Roviey, 16,1979, pp. 279-280. See also Oliver, . tal. op cit. p34 42" Hitch, F The Sod! Lin © Groth, Lone don, Routledge and Kegan Paul 1977, pp 27— ‘See Newby's discussion af the countryside as positional good in Newby, H, Creo ana Plant and: Sorel Change ie Rural England, Hammonds worth. Penguin. 1978. pp, 201-208, See also arcise, Py ‘Conservation for whom? 1 Smith, [LN (ee, Enron! Cal and Saisie ‘risa Amor Washington DC, Conservation Foundation, 1974, pp. 17=35 “4 Ashworth, W. op. ct, B23. 45 Jack GH, op et Chery, . E09. cit. p an, ‘6 House of Commons, Command 6237, Ca ‘nl of Land Use London, HMSO, 1944; Town and Country Planning Act 1948 {7 Aekertnan-A'S €, Valuation of damage to Anclent Lights ural he Royal tino Bish ‘Archit. 38, 1931, pp. 326-329 and subsequent cotrections to this paper. See Waldran, P. J ‘Modern Wethods of measuring and gredeter. mining daylight ownal of the Royal Use of British Arches, 44,1937, pp. 1045-1055; The Peneraon of Dag and Sanit no Bugs Miymination Research Technical Paper No.7, 1937, Royal Insite of Brtsh Arehtets. "The Orientation of Buleings. Iourna of tie Royal Insite of rsh Arts, 39.1982, pp. 777-180, Waldram. P. 1, ‘Daylight problems. urder the ‘oven and Country Planing Act 1932, ura! of ie Royal Inte of Brisk Aves, 2, 1935. pp 1091-1005; Ministry of Health, Tow and Coury Pauning—Moid Clauses 1923-1939, London, HMSO, 1930, Lancaster, H.V, “Height end bulk, im buildings in relation to their requrements and surroundings. lowrval ofthe Tove Pale Insite, 20.1938, pp23-227 48 Alien, W.. ‘Daylighting of buildings. tn urban distrts journal te Roya Insite rst ‘Arce, 50, 1943, pp. 85-87; Allen, W. and Compton, 0. A form of contal of 2uiding development in terms of daylighting Ross! Taste of Bt Aves aural, A, 1947, pp380 JOHN PUNTER 4191-499, Ministry of Heslth, Central Housing ‘Achisoy Commitie, Tie Design of Onliags (Duc fey Report, Landon, HMSO, 1948, pp. 31, 31-52, "TRoT3: Minty of Town and Country Panning ‘AdvtoyHandbok othe Redemlopmet of Cot ‘Aras orion, HMSO, 1047 In the-contex ofthe foregoing discussion It is interesting to note WWoldran’s crielems of the handbook: see WWaleram .),"Contrel of urban redevelopment fan_examination of euttent proposals. Repl Insta of Bris Arcietslural 95, 1948, p, 62-468 29 Holden, CH. and Holford, W. G., Reon stron ite Ci of Landon: hal Report By he it ‘Crsuitants. Landon, Corporation of ‘London, TodT. Minigty of Town and Country Planning, sae Detlpment an Masagenan pols war damaged roe report of Cental sory Comte fn Eso Daopment Neal Report). London, HMSO, 1946, Forshaw, | and Abercrombie, © County of London Plax, London. Macmillan, (48, p13. 116-117, 139-141 "0 Ministey of Town and County Planning, (1917), op. et. pp. 72-73, 51 Ling. A. “Skyscrapers and their siting in ‘ities, Taw Panning Rew 3. 1963, p. 8 32 binsad, 437, 1946, pp. 2204, 2095, 257 53 Town and Country Planning Act 1947, ch 51, exp. pp. 12, 13. 26-33, 554 Wood, Wi, Plming andthe Le, London 1982; see. also" Grant, M, Urban Planting Law London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1982, pp. 282-295, "8 Ministy of Town and County Planning. S51, 1948 No. 958, The Toe and Coury Planning {Gavrl Deslpmen) Onder, London, HMSO, 1948, ‘35 House ef commans, Command 8204, Ton and Couniry Panning 1943-51. London, HMSO, 1951, pp. (38-141 31 Sheepehanks, S.7. "The Town and Country Planning, Act. Repl laste of Bris Arias Fours 56, 194, pp. 208-212. SB Binistry of Health, Circular No. 6% Town sand Coury Plan Ac 1947, Planning Apps ondan, Misty of Health, 1948 "9 Ministy of Town and County Planning ‘$1 1950, No 728, The Twn and County Planing ‘General Devopent Order and eveapment Charge ‘Appt Regulations, London, HMSO, 1950; ‘adil lural (ed5), “An Act of Liveraton’ ‘Arce lounl, 111, 1990, pp. 597-598; Keeble, Ce ecies and Pracie of Toon ant Cou Panning, London, Estates Gazette, 1969 (th fen}. p. 33%; Ministy of Town and) Countey Planning, Noes on the Siig of owes te County Avis London, HMSO, 1950 Ministry of Tewn and Country Planning. (1951) op cit pp. 33 34, 139-140 ‘80 Ministey of Town and, Couniry Planning, ‘command £204, Tau “end Coury Panning 1943-1951, London, HRSO, 1951. pp. 138-195 Ministry of Town and County Panning. Adviory Hendbok onthe Relowbpmert of Central Ares, London, HMSO, 1947, especially pp. 72-73, ‘Bre, L_ ‘Second thoughts on planning Roya Insite of rh veel? fara 57,1949, Dp d3-48, chet? ural (eds), “1947 ects Towra. 108, 1948, p. 49. Mellor, T. "Second thoughts on architecture’, Rog Insitute of Beh rcs oral, 37, 1950, pp. 295-397; Con. Ay Public and private. architecture’ elites? orl, 107, 1948, pp. 393-354 (62 South Bank’ Exhibition, Avitetunt Rover, 110, 1951 pp, T2178. See also Esher, L A breton” Wave, Te Rebuling of Ergland To48-1980, Landon, Allen Lane, 1981, p. 48 Raveta Raman Cis, London, Croom Helm, 1980, p34; Mellor, T. ‘The end of the begin- ring. oon Planing Rov, 23, 1953. pp. 751, “G2 Richards, | M, "New Londen Office bul. ings: the Lessor scheme ertally examined ‘ect furl, 11, 1950, pp. 294-98. See also Brett, L. The Crown bulls, Arctectuat Revie, 113.1958, pp. 7-H: ‘A. stronghold ‘reached. Archit Touma, 118, 1953, p.178: ‘RFAC AnnualReport. Arcitects_ learn 1993, p. 196, See also op. 397 and 536 in same volume and ‘London, City Olfce bleck ert sad, ave Iona, 117, 1953, p. 666; also pp. 257 and 364 in same volume: Richards, Mt Rebuilding the City. 1.2. 3, Arete Raves, 115 and 16, 1952, pp. 361, US-147, 355-357 ‘4 Are Journal (eds, "Architectural ii tls, Arcs ouraa, 108, 1949, pp 649—450, ‘These were probebly pre-war designs repro uced to mest the Immediate Nousing needs Ser the Wat. In fac the LCC was already ‘experimenting with modem architecture: see ‘Greater London Courel, Home Sewt Hn, Lon- on, Academy Editions, 1976, es. pp. 4-61. “65 Gayton, H. E. Exeter, Reconstruction retrospect, Jounal of he Town Paring state, 40,1934, p. 202, childs. D. Rigby and Boyne. D. ALG A, Exeter A Survey, Arts ural, 116 1932, b 222. Childs, D. Rigby, Comparison of progtess In rebuilding bombed cites. Arce! Tour, 120, 1954.90 16 Esher, Ly (9B!) op. ctf 20, 67 Sharp, T,Exater Piz pan or rebut. ‘London, Afehitectural Press, 1948p. 108, "ExeterA HISTORY OF AESTHETIC CONTROL: PART | 381 ‘ity Cente, Archit? Jou, 118.1952. 215, See also Note 6 (68 Avie Joral (eds), “Bullding controls and public architecture (2), Aries Jara. 16, 1952, p 488, Artes ourva eds. Conte of elevations by the ignorant. As our 1, 1952, p.725: Hampton, P. State controled architects Arts loura. 17, 1953, 28 NTE [A more comolete account ofthe pre-war history of aesthetic control is avallable in Punter, | VA Histo of stl Coal Tl Extra Appotrene of Detdopment 1909-1947, Reading University of Reading. Deportment of Lend. Management "Working Papers In Envionmental Policy No.2. 1988 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ‘he author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Economie and Social Research Council which funded the le upon which this pager is based The Economics of Irrigation by Ian Carruthers and Colin Clark Principal topics covered in this book include: the character and extent of problems connected with irrigated agriculture; water requirements of plants in different environments; crop response to irrigation; water resources, including quality con- siderations; groundwater economics; cost and returns to irrigation; charging for irrigation water; and planning procedures for irrigation development. The final chapter contains a summary of the findings of the review and recommerdations regarding technical and socio-economic aspects of irrigation which will be of value to agriculturaliss, planners and designers of irrigation systems, engineers, medical specialists, politicians and administrators 318 pp, £20.00 cath (ISBN 0885232841) 10.0 paper (ISBN 0 8323 464 7; £3.50 ELBS paper ISBN ose aey Liverpool University Press PO Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK