The value of housing design and layout

corrosive effect on quality and resisting innovation’. They go on to indicate that,
‘while there are signs that things may be changing, these forces must currently be
seen as a major constraint on the promotion of more urban housing’.
A cautionary note is sounded in other research regarding the operation of the land
and housing market under conditions of supply constraint in the UK. Cheshire and
Sheppard in 1997 indicated that, under conditions of sustained housing demand and
land supply constraints, it is generally ‘planning amenities’ or space that increase
disproportionately in price in comparison with ‘reproducible’ attributes of housing.
These ‘goods’ which the planning system delivers are valued, the authors argue, but
in ignorance of the price that is paid for those planning amenities. ‘Their values are
not just incorporated in the price paid for a house. There are also extra costs. These
are the higher price paid for all housing land, shortage of space and the more
cramped conditions in which we all have to live. Planning amenities are not paid for
directly so they appear to be free. But because they are only produced by restricting
the supply of building land, they cause the price of land, and thus of housing, to rise.’
This analysis would seem to confirm and extend that of Verhage and Needham in
identifying the source of the ‘extra price’ attributable to the ‘residential environment’
outside the dwelling unit in the operation of a restrictive planning system. Design is
not, however, one of the explicit housing attributes considered in the analysis
(although access to schools and to public open space is modelled). Others also
make a similar argument concerning such ‘neighbourhood externality’ effects of
planning-induced improvements in the quality of residential development.
2.4 Housing design quality and ‘value’
ADDRESSING THE GAPS
The publication in 1973 of A design guide for residential areas by Essex County
Council introduced a radically new framework for residential design guidance.
Subsequent research into the impact of such design guidance for private residential
development by the DOE/HRF in 1976 indicated a concern with the cost
implications of design guidance and control. It asserted that, ‘a requirement for a
more expensive design solution for the houses must be offset by a saving in cost
elsewhere, such as in road construction, or by allowing a higher density of
development to reduce the land costs for each dwelling’.
In a discussion paper on good design in housing by Davison in 1990, it is argued
that many aspects of good design add little or no extra costs to residential
schemes, but that some elements of good design do increase costs. It is argued
that, ‘developers who have persisted with high design standards have found that
their product does have an added, premium value, but only on the subsequent
resale when the environment is more settled and established. This benefits
discerning purchasers but does not recoup the developer’s costs’.
Davison estimates that the cost of achieving a broad spectrum of design
improvements might be in the order of 5–10% of the land value. He argues, ‘this
seems to suggest that there should be some scope for planning intervention to
redirect some of the betterment from the landowners’ profits to the benefit of the
T H E V A L U E O F H O U S I N G D E S I G N A N D L A Y O U T
21