appearance and function aren't two separate things. buildings always look like the things that they are,though architects try to disguise them sometimes. mock tudor only ever looks like mock tudor, and stone cladding-universally despised-was a surface that was applied solely for aesthetic reasons. Conversely, a building that is designed purely for function and with no aesthetic input almost always looks ok (i think). Until the recent movement to green building, the only inoffensive and decent construction in the countryside were utilitarian farm buildings.(which, ironically, didn't usually need planning permission). I think that what people call aesthetics are gut reactions-which aren't always consciously formulated-to the elegance and intelligence in a design that suits it to its purpose.

The trade-off between aesthetics and maximum energy efficiency/sustainability is moreover dependent on the purpose and application of the building. If the debated building is of commercial purposes, of course, aesthetics and acool look do matter anyway. A hotel or a shopping mall witha green label and looking like a graveyard will not be accepted by the public, whatever be the environmentalifriendliness it can offer.

being a newcomer to this august forum I am amazed that you can joust for so long over nuance: is compromise win-win for example.

Isn't this tantamount to Nero busy on his fiddle while the country continues to throw up (pun intended) vernacular pastiche graced by the name "executive" houses, dismally failing all current eco-standards, the building industry conservative beyond belief, miserably replying to criticism with the matra "that's what our clients want"

Or are we to plough our superior furrow ignoring all else?

Appearance is a key factor, in my opinion.

Appearance doesn't matter? Try telling that to our conservation officer. I once asked her it she thought it was ever possible to design a house that looked nicer than a rough paddock and was told no. Didn't stop them building some pretty rubbish looking council houses in the village some years ago.

Someone once suggested to me we all live by the 'BUD' principle - ie anytime we make/build something, we should ask ourselves 'is it Beautiful, Useful and Durable?'

I like to add 'fun' to that - but that turns it into the f word

Well said Laurence

>>.this is important............ were built before planning permission was invented! <<

Why do you think this is important Laurence?

We have to thank 70yrs of Planning system for the fact that UK isn't by now wall-to-wall development, albeit of varying density, nowhere in UK out of sight of building(s), rural experience unknown to the British nation.

There may be some truth in what you say Laurence. In London it's more like 130 units (1000 HRpH) as a density limit. The apparent reason for increasing density is to reduce travel and so CO2 emissions.

We are a society which has nimbyism deeply ingrained and represented by the local Planning system. As fostertom also points out, if we did not limit the quality of life of the majority of our citizens, the countryside could be spoiled a bit.

Planners are just following Government and local Policy Chris. A policy of condensing the population away from potential renewables, in housing forms that cannot be converted to accept local renewable generation, makes a lot of sense if the only option is Nuclear. The EWP (the one that has been legally challenged) makes it clear that Nuclear is the only option being considered.

Planning is oppressive.

Almost everything attractive was built before planning. Everyone knows this.

Fostertom: Is that irony? If you want peace and quiet buy a huge estate and leave other people's property alone.

Quite Tom

To protect all existing countryside and rural lifestyles, the most obvious choice for future energy development would be Nuclear as this allows the country to place expanding population in higher density city zones without having to rely on renewables. Do you see another viable alternative? (other than significantly modifying planning)

Tom, isn't it the case that we only occupy a very small fraction of the land area of the country? If we concentrated new development onto the edge of small towns and by expanding villages to sizes which can sustain local services like buses, primary schools, Post Offices etc, then more people would have the opportunity of living a rural lifestyle. The properties built could have a proper garden where food could be grown. They could be made affordable and self-built and tied to rural occupations i.e. not available for commuters.

I cannot see the point of continuing to expand cities which can only be serviced through the use of cheap fossil fuels. I suspect in 20 years time, there will be little demand for the services provided by many of these city dwellers and they will be force to leave the cities in any case. Most of these jobs depend for their existence on a debt based consumer society whose days are numbers. It is already starting to unravel with the debt implosion that is underway. As house prices fall, the central banks will be forced to re-inflate the bubble one last time to prevent asset prices collapsing (the security for all the debt) but the ultimate end game is hyperinflation. Add in Peak Oil and the post war fossil fuel powered economic boom is over by 2012. I don't see a way out of this.

Happy new year!

To be honest I don't know how many more houses this country needs to solve the 'housing crisis'.

With planning law as it stands we seem to get housing development which is very noticible, ie swathes of countryside lost to thousands of high density houses, each with an HP'd 4x4 outside. Here in rural Somerset our developers seem to have a penchant for red brick home counties town houses! (there is traditionally no red brick in this area, or for a radius of about 50 miles).

Every time I get in an aeroplane (not very often you will be pleased to hear!) I am amazed by just how un-developed our countryside is. The same can be said for a canal boat, which takes you away from roads and into a rural paradise that most of us never see or even realise is there. Perhaps if our development was more spread out we would literally not notice it, or it could even add to the beauty of the countryside. I believe that in this country we are still suffering the legacy of the enclosures, where the squires kept their estates for their entertainment and the rest of us peasants were forced onto land that wasn't good enough for the deer. We have seen huge changes in farming over recent years and there are millions of acres of beautiful land lying dormant, surely we should be using a few corners of it to improve the lives of everyone!

On the undeveloped theme, check out the scotish highlands, get past Glasgow and Edinburgh and there is a land mass almost as long as the whole of England with virtually nothing there! We just aren't short of space, we just think we are!