Endpiece, Joe holyoak
Out of line
There are some urban design conventions which we treat as rules, but which are not, as far as I know, actually written down. As a consequence, we may use them unthinkingly, without really examining them. The particular one which prompts this thought is the ‘building line’. Where is the convention of a building line defined? Maybe it’s in Vitruvius or Alberti; if any reader knows, please let me know.
I was giving evidence as an expert witness in a High Court trial recently, on behalf of suburban residents who had taken their neighbours to court for proposing to transgress a restrictive covenant which had been put in place when their road was first laid out over fields in 1890. The defendants had got planning permission to build three houses in their two adjoining back gardens, contrary to the covenant, which restricted development to one detached house or two semi-detached houses per plot. But they argued that there had been so many transgressions in the past hundred years that effectively the covenant was no longer valid. One of the other terms of the covenant was that every house built on the 57 designated plots should conform to a uniform12 feet building line. The surveyor appearing as a witness for the defendants had counted the number of plots with houses where the 12 feet building line had not been not adhered to. I had done the same and produced a much smaller figure.
But I had not fully thought through how adherence to a building line was to be defined until I was under cross-examination by the defendants’ barrister. The surveyor maintained that it meant that every part of the building’s front wall (except perhaps the occasional bay window) had to be on that line. I argued that this was excessively literal, and that as long as a significant proportion of the house was on the line, it was perfectly acceptable for the remainder of the front to be recessed. In fact, subsidiary parts of the house such as a garage should be recessed to produce a pleasing articulation. “What is the minimum proportion?” the barrister asked. I had no readymade answer, for I had never considered the question previously, but I played it safe and answered “one half”. Moreover, I maintained, the purpose of a building line was less to prevent recessions back from it, but more to prevent projections forward of it. I am confident that this is right, but when the barrister asked me from where I had gained these rules, all I could do was to answer limply that it was from years of experience in both study and practice. It would have been more effective if I could have quoted a paragraph from Camillo Sitte or Responsive Environments. You usually think of your best reply after the chance has gone, but in this case I wasn’t even able to do that.
I thought at the time that this exchange, although an enjoyable contest, was pretty academic, as I considered there was little chance of our winning. Quite apart from the relatively minor issue of the building line, there had been two dreadful culs-de-sac of houses and flats built on the road in the 1960s, completely disregarding the terms of the restrictive covenant. So I was surprised, and delighted, to learn later that the judge had ruled for the claimants – we had won. Despite my making it up as I went along, the judge must have been convinced. But I think I should be better informed next time.
Joe Holyoak
