On Beauty

This article seeks to examine the legal implications of the inclusion of the term “ beauty, ” as regards the built environment, in the National Planning Policy Framework ( “ NPPF ” ) 2021a. The NPPF sets out central government ’ s planning policies and how they are expected to be applied by local authorities 1 in England. References to beauty in the NPPF 2021 have doubled compared to 2019 which used the term fi ve times, exclusively with reference to the natural environment or open space. Contrastingly, the fi ve new mentions refer to beauty in the built environment, 2 implying that not only does the government see beauty in the built environment as a separate category to beauty in the natural environment, but that the former is equally important to central government planning policy. objective finding based on established architectural principles, and adorning a building with the epithet ‘ beautiful ’ , which is a subjective one. To my mind, my finding that the building would attain a very high (or exemplary) standard of design is sufficient to justify a conclusion that the proposal does not fall foul of Government advice on the subject in the Framework, the National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code. 10 As an Australian Academic teaching in Architecture and Sustainable Design, and with practice experience in large scale public engagement and participatory design, this contribution seeks to highlight the different cultural interpretations of Beauty that contemporary planning might wish to consider. This contribution speci fi cally highlights the cultural beliefs of Indigenous Australians and is informed by my time living for over a year in a remote Aboriginal Australian settlement in Australia ’ s north where I conducted participatory planning contracted by the Northern Territory Government. That work is detailed in my 2020 book Connecting People Place and Design