: Landscape aesthetics and notions of appropriate residential architecture in Dartmoor National Park, England

contested part of landscape planning, inseparable from park conservation ideologies and policies. Within public discourse, new housing proposals can be praised for enhancing the landscape or decried for destroying it, while the decisions of planning authorities legitimise or marginalise different points-of-view. Set in Dartmoor National Park, this paper explores the competing aesthetic interpretations of landscape and the rural as represented within the design and planning of two separate residential sites that were redeveloped between 1998-2008. Discourse analysis of interviews (with architects, planners and clients), policies, and written accounts (planning applications and associated correspondence) investigates the positions of various stakeholders in response to these housing projects and to their protected rural landscape settings. Results reveal how notions of landscape context and aesthetics vary across different stakeholder groups, with design quality, sympathetic scale and landscape enhancement proving to be key areas of contention. Differing interpretations of national park planning policy, the problematic nature of communicating and judging qualitative ongoing emphasis on visual aspects of landscape aesthetics mean that incorporating new housing design within national park landscapes remains challenging.


Introduction
As arguably the most valued rural national parks, covering 9.3% of the country, have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape 1 At the same time, as home to around 334,000 people, the design of housing within English national park boundaries represents a significant and contested part of rural landscape planning, inseparable from landscape conservation ideologies and policies.
R MacEwen and MacEwen (1987), (1982) and Blunden and Curry (1989) reveal 1 National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 115 (2012). *Manuscript (including references but without author details and affiliations) Click here to view linked References and inherent tensions (Thompson et al. 2014, 6). When new housing is proposed within such a context, notions of landscape, the rural, and contemporary architecture are part of public discourse and decision-making they can legitimise (or marginalise) particular developments, aesthetics and actions in rural settlements, emphasising the power relations of different stakeholders in the rural policy (Donovan and Gkartzios 2014, 335). The existing literature on constructions of rurality suggests that residential development in rural spaces is highly contested (Donovan and Gkartzios 2014). In this paper, we extend this literature by investigating competing aesthetic interpretations of landscape and the rural, and their relationship to perceptions of contemporary architectural design, as evidenced within the specific context of English national parks.
The dominant landscape values associated with national park designation and protection are preserving scenic landscapes and facilitating public access to those landscapes for recreation. These values are reflected in the two English national park statutory purposes, namely to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the al 2 In practice, however, these values are often in conflict, while management strategies encompassing both preservation and enhancement are likewise not always reconcilable (Carr 1998).
P (Butler 2016, 239). In defining policy and exercising planning functions, park planners must negotiate among statutory purposes, landscape values and stakeholder aspirations. Park planning is itself a source of tension, imposing a form of cultural authority which allows freeholders to operate, but with development conditions Tensions arise when efforts to categorise landscape as a conceptual system of laws and relationships conflict with the landscape of (Olwig 2002). To date, however, there has been a lack of literature which looks at how planning professionals handle landscape values when negotiating landscape change (Butler 2016, 239). There has similarly been research on how the rural is constructed in architectural practice as well as how these (Donovan and Gkartzios 2014, 334). In addition, in the last few decades, research on English park planning has (Thompson et al. 2014, 6). This paper investigates these topics through the planning process (1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008) of two single residential sites in Dartmoor National Park. Dartmoor, which was given national park status in 1951, covers 953 sq. km and is the largest open space in southern England. It is also home to around 34,000 people living in towns and villages within its boundaries. An exemplar of (Lowe et al. 2003, 95), Dartmoor has in recent decades been under specific and increasing pressure as a desirable place to live, with substantial in-migration, housing shortages, and rising house prices (Richards and Satsangi 2004). Indeed, this landscape where the very act of protecting rural areas makes them more attractive to urban migrants (Murdoch and Lowe 2003, 323). Other issues impacting on residential development include an ageing population, growing numbers of people working from home, and a high proportion of energy-inefficient buildings. 3 While landscape protection status in many countries excludes housing altogether, the 3 ur Dartmoor http://www.yourdartmoor.org/developing/evidence/issues (accessed May 7, 2017). park history. The English national park system was established under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Although based on the original American model, in evident palimpsest of time-depth and cultural settlement (Selman 2010, 384). In such of their (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 13). As such, English national parks are (Dudley 2008). Also different from America, where a near-underlay its national park designations (Leonard 2007, 25), was the notion in England , (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 8 (2010), which set out (Dartmoor National Park Authority, 2008, 8).
In landscape planning, special qualities of individual landscape (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 14). In England, qualities and UK features, distinctive geology and industrial history. It has been observed, however, that although a set of attributes that make them special is even - (Thompson et al. 2014, 762).
In recent years, more formal assessments of landscape character in the shape of  (Belcher and Wellman). Such methods also challenge the authority of reinforces the visual approach (Olwig 2007, 582, 590). In a recent study of LCAs, however, it was found that of 2010 demonstrates a particular -visual values (Butler 2016, 247).
Just as notions of landscape itself are changing, there is a growing acknowledgement of the difficulty of applying universal rules of aesthetic appeal in a meaningful way (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 14). Indeed, what makes landscapes beautiful , shift perceptions of how we perceive and appreci (Jorgensen 2011, 353). These shifts can happen on different temporal scales, f , to -term historical and cultural shifts in aesthetic appreciation for particular types (Jorgensen 2011, 353). In Dartmoor, landscape perceptions have shifted strikingly from a , condemned in the 19 th century by those who sought to (Kelly 2015, 10).
Dartmoor the wilderness and Dartmoor the anthropic landscape of shifting meaning and (Kelly 2015, 14). In the popular imagination there remains a close (Dinnie, Blackstock, and Dilley 2012, 452).
Specifically, it was the preservation of so-the key driver in English national park designation, and which continues to be enshrined in their statutory purposes (Selman and Swanwick 2010).
shown to be ncy related to a prevailing consensus on what people consider to be aesthetic and important to human well- (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 7). has been shown to retain park landscape policy (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 4). Indeed England European Landscape (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 4). 7 A key consideration for this paper is thus the perceived effect of new dwellings in An early American illustration of the Hetchy dam development (1908)(1909)(1910)(1911)(1912)(1913) in Yosemite National Park, where its supporters argued that it could be designed to enhance the natural landscape, while its opponents argued the fallacy of this concept (Leonard 2007, 25). Frederic Law Olmstead Jr., the influential American landscape architect, believed that development (Carr 1998, 9). In England, however, a more recent study of new commercial development in national parks (Lloyd, McCarthy, and Illsley 2004, 293) found that planners, although accepting the need for a strong rural (Thompson, Garrod, and Raley 2013, 762).
It is argued here that aesthetic landscape constructs influence not 5 (Porteous 1996, 176). In England, national park planning au sympathetic issues include appropriate appropriate (Dartmoor National Park Authority 2011, 10).
The widespread use of such terminology supports the assertion that, in English national parks, n-made change does not necessarily pose any threat (Leonard 2007, 26). Acceptable change, in short, is that which is considered landscape (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 13). In the New Forest National Park, for example, a Landscape Assessor felt that the primary consideration of natural beauty was the presence of outstanding landscape quality with an absence of a (Selman and Swanwick 2010, 16). Similarly, in the Broads National Park, its Authority judges the town of Potter Heig build the wrong kind of landscape for their vision (Matless 1998, 10 6 This narrow will become a dogma, and that for buildings in National Parks, the criteria for acceptability will be any reference to local (Land Use Consultants 2001, 9). In America, during the post-similar traditional design, which it was argued, , architecture (Carr 2007, 132). In America, however, eventually an approach was found that nat In contrast, advocates of the English park planning system assert that it can also be argued to be effective with regard to cultural heritage if this is interpreted to mean the built

Research Design
The context for this paper is a wider study of residential architecture in Dartmoor National Park since 1997. Although the national park was designated in 1951, it was not until 1997, 7 S Belli, second interview. 8 . 9 Ibid. 10 S Belli, second interview.
following the Environment Act 1995, that a free-standing Authority responsible for the administration and management of the national park was established, having previously been administered by a Committee on the Devon County Council. As such, this date represents a 11 In this paper, two residential Dartmoor sites and their recent development histories are presented as comparative case studies. Focusing on changes between 1998 and 2008, we examine the different interpretations of landscape and the rural which emerged during the contested design and planning process of four individual houses by four different architects two on each site: one unexecuted; one built.  The two sites are suitable for comparative analysis due to similarities in terms of landscape character, scale, and planning history. Both sites had pre-existing dwellings, which meant that the principle of a house on each site had already been established (a point that will be returned to in the analysis). A photograph of the realised building on the first site (A) is other, very different, n were proposed for these sites: their reception is compared.
Four separate phases of development are considered: the pre-development conditions; the first (unbuilt) design applications; the second (built) applications; and post construction appraisals. This paper employs two types of discourse analysis: the analysis of direct accounts (depth interviews with key informants, including architects, planners and clients), and of written accounts (planning applications, design guides, reports, minutes of committee meetings, correspondence) reflexively between the observed data and the theoretical concepts (Deming and Swaffield 2011, 152). Findings are supported by analysis of design drawings and visits to the sites themselves.
The paper investigates the extent to which park stakeholders share common concerns and strategies or inversely whether notions of context, aesthetics and landscape experience (and the policies that govern their production) are quite distinct. In doing so we seek to clarify the relationship between landscape aesthetics and architectural preferences, specifically how landscape aesthetics are embodied in di .
Our analysis of architectural preference focuses on the three primary areas of concern design quality, sympathetic scale and landscape enhancement which were identified as being key concerns during the planning process. prevalence of two different approaches to architecture in the landscape; the first is that architecture is not welcome (restricting additional buildings) and the second that architecture is welcome, if it is deemed to contribute to existing landscape character, as accrued over time.

Phase 1: Pre-Development Conditions
Significantly, where a replacement dwelling allowed over the original will be limited, and the expectation will be that permitted (Dartmoor National Park Authority 2013, 58).
At the time of these projects the allowable increase in volume was stipulated at 10% of the volume of the existing dwelling including any outbuildings. 12 Initially, both sites contained detached, white-13 In terms of size, siting and visual impact, the two dwellings were thus notably similar, but there were marked differences in the way they were valued by planners. Site A was described 14 by a planner who objected t while in direct contrast, Site B was those supporting redevelopment. 15

Site B. The -(Unbuilt)
We now turn to consider the 2004 planning application by architects Andrew Wright Associates to replace the bungalow on Site B. In this instance, however, the proposal was of a very different style, employed a very different application strategy, and subsequently saw a very different outcome to the first proposal for Site A.  proved highly controversial both in terms of its unusual design and its large scale. 37 The planning com an exciting form of modern, sustainable development, replacing a group of buildings which could, at best, only be described as . 38 As the Director of Planning at the time explained: There is a widely-accepted view that National Park that are to be protected at all costs, but they are places in which good things, even experiments, can be allowed to happen [ ] there will be occasional cases where may not be the overriding factor when something genuinely innovative and exciting is being proposed. 39 articulated in the later Design Guide) by using modern materials and making no references to vernacular architecture. A significant factor in its acceptance appears to be that, unlike Site A, the planners disliked the existing bungalow, and saw this proposal a the site. The proposal also addressed local planning policy on permitted development, rather than attempting to override it through PPG7. Despite controversy over the design, it was granted planning permission, although concerns over the visual impact of glare led to the condition that non-reflecting glass should be used (although the building was permitted to be white In the end, however, the project, which was wrought with technical difficulties, proved too expensive to construct, and the site was sold on, but with approved planning consent in-situ.  As well as visibility, the other key factor influencing this design was size. To comply with local policy, it was considerably smaller than the rejected proposal. It proved, however, that having decided that they would support this latest design, the planners, (as with the One-took a flexible approach to the 10% policy on volume. there are still people on the planning committee who think 51 , it seems again in this instance, as with the that the notion of contemporary design was not unwelcome to planners, albeit with the implication that there are site would be . Even so, this study reinforces the idea that, for planners, an unseen building is a good building. Site B, with its in-situ planning consent for a sizable contemporary building, attracted the attention of London architect Julian Powell-Tuck. During pre-application consultations, he to demonstrate that a new contemporary house can be carefully integrated into a special lan . 52 The planners, however, focused on size rather than design or environmental qualities, stipulating that the scale of the proposed dwelling must relate to the existing bungalow, n -. 53 As with the the above ground volume which is the visual part of the building and that which will form the basis of assessing its impact . 54 This gave the architect an opportunity to create a larger dwelling by again burying part of it in the ground.

Phase 4: After Completions
There are post-construction narratives which pertain to each of these projects which demonstrate how just as projects change, so too do the way they are perceived. in his objections. 61 The acceptance of this building by planners is certainly indicated by the use of its image in the Dartmoor Design Guide. 62 The fact however that no caption or accompanying text is provided with the photograph, however, also illustrates the difficulties design.
In contrast, while no formal objections were raised against the during the planning process, this researcher has identified negative local opinions about the completed design, indicating a further split between locals, planners and architects.
The Director of Planning seemed aware of this local feeling when he remarked on the antagonism from the . 63 The architect similarly commented the trouble with around here is that anything modern [ ] is usually treated by people as 64 Again, Tudorbethan , this reflects how preferences towards contemporary design often remain at odds with the non-design public, including some planners.

Discussion
Landscape theories and policies, as evidenced by the European Landscape Convention, are increasingly recognising the complexity of landscape and moving away from a purely visual Policy X X X -(at the time) Scale and size, landscape enhancement and design) enhancement and will be discussed accordingly.

Scale and size
The most significant planning issue was scale and size. Strikingly, all three applications that complied with local policy on permitted volume were granted planning permission, including 65  Instead, it seemed that for planners, in the case of replacement dwellings, the decisive factor was not so much a perceived positive relationship of a new building to its setting but the site relative to its previous condition. This can be clearly seen for example in the contrasting perceptions of the two original bungalows, which, despite their similar appearances, were valued very differently depending on whether the notion of a replacement was welcome. It was also clear from the design statements (written by the architects) which explicitly and favourably compared the visual impact of the proposals to that of their precedents, that the achieving planning permission. Indeed, for planners, enabling some forms of change could hange. (Hunt 1992, 133). These case studies have indicated that while stakeholder position is significant in shaping stakeholder values, these positions are complex. The park planning process, which inevitably promotes the values of one group over another, has been subjectivity of the insiders who di (Butler 2016, 240). This research, however, has shown that planners, in negotiating between the rights and aspirations of freeholders and the democratic interests of a wider public, can employ subjective judgments in interpreting both design and policy. Differences have also emerged between ittee Members, who are non-professionals (in terms of design) and often insiders themselves.

81
These proposals all represent bespoke p in contrast to existing local housing stock and residential communities.

Conclusion
English national park planning is policy-led, and there are both qualitative and quantitative methodologies around which decisions are made. It was clear from these case studies that having a meaningful discussion about design practice in Dartmoor cannot take place without planning rules and values arising too, which frame the way the designers position their work.
There is an inherent flexibility within the park planning system which allows for judgements about landscape change, including development and architectural design, to be made on a site by site basis. This means that the subtleties of rural landscape setting and character and as well as ecological and social context (for example neighbouring properties and landscape uses) can be considered. The architects emphasised the importance of an just a feeling for where you are and w 84 The implication that someo highlights a further potential split between the cultural landscape as conceptually constructed by planners / stakeholders and designers practicing within it, where such l arise as a result. The effects of this friction extend beyond park landscapes and could be applied to the assessment of design quality and contextualisation in any context.
Meanwhile the price paid for such flexibility is a lack of consistency around key terms and concepts within the planning and design discourse, and a perceived inconsistency in the planning process itself, adding to development tensions amongst stakeholders. It also suggests that rural landscape change is difficult to predict, and indeed the Director of 85 discrepancies in interpretations of scale and size, visibility, landscape enhancement and 84 P Hall, first interview. 85 S Belli, second interview.
design quality which was celebrated as enhancing the landscape could also be decried for destroying it.
Such inconsistencies appear to be due to several factors, including the substantive and complex nature of landscape itself, around which stakeholders formed different assumptions architectural terms and communicating design ideas. Current planning policy does not reflect the complexity of the planning process, which could be attributed to its being 86 While it is not yet clear how, as Olwig (2007, 581) nderstanding the tensions amongst different landscape aesthetics can provide valuable insight into understanding frictions over architectural design. Indeed, the application of a setting out the implications for architectural design, could improve landscape understanding in relation to architecture and reduce frictions around the design and planning of new dwellings. In any event, t a sensitive environment such as Dartmoor, hinges upon having a meaningful dialogue between all parties -residents, planners, clients and designers -which an engagement with ideas about landscape aesthetics and architectural design, could facilitate.