The Report of the Competition Jury

Objective

In 1997 the Government published a specific set of criteria to encourage the creation in specified circumstances of individual country houses standing within their own landscape setting.  The objective of this competition was two-fold: to seek a design that could be built to provide a home for the competition promoters (the Cardales); and to demonstrate that a country house of the very highest quality together with its landscaping could be built in an exceptional setting both to enhance its surroundings and contribute to the nation’s architectural heritage.  Competitors were informed that their designs should comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 3.2.1 of Planning Policy Guidance note 7: the Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (PPG 7).

The Site for the proposed country house is located within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in 80 acres of rolling countryside with outstanding views. It is the type of setting in which a country house would have been built in the past, but which has been inhibited by Planning legislation for two generations. Despite this, the demand for idyllic country homes has continued and there is a danger that the tradition of creating country houses will become frozen in the image of the past if successive generations are unable to make their contribution according to the contemporary paradigm. 

Mindful that the site is in an area of outstanding beauty and the understandable sensitivity associated with any new development, the competition brief had been put together following considerable planning, research and consultation.  Likewise the Jury Panel had been carefully selected to bring together an experienced team of professionals, pre-eminent in their respective fields, each bringing different skills and expertise to bear upon the judging process.  It is to the Cardales’ credit that the full competition brief was made available on the internet, and as a result the competition attracted interest from architects all over the world.  The website itself attracted over 5,000 visitors, with over 120 architects visiting the proposed site.

	Back to top
	Back to menu

Stage 1 Assessment : 19 November 2001

The Panel met on Monday 19^th November to consider the submissions and select 3 for further review.  The Panel was chaired by Peter Yiangou, the RIBA Architectural Adviser to the competition. 

A total of 92 entries were received by the submission deadline.  Although the brief did not prescribe a preference for a particular style, it was made reasonably clear that the promoters were seeking a design appropriate for the location and this was likely to require a traditional approach.  However, the Panel was keen to consider  contemporary designs provided they were handled with sensitivity.  

With so many high quality entries, the task of agreeing a shortlist was daunting. The Panel decided that following a first viewing of all the entries they would aim to reduce the number of schemes to an initial shortlist of approximately 20.  The Panel members spent time studying each entry individually before convening to discuss each scheme on a group basis.  The first shortlist was thus achieved through a process of elimination.

Criteria for Assessment

The entries were assessed against the criteria outlined in the competition brief, in addition to a number of other issues that had arisen following a first viewing of the schemes:

-          general massing – houses in the Cotswold area have tended to be simple and unfussy, relying on texture and proportion for their elegance

-          what type of skyline would the building give – the views towards as well as from the site

-          approach / access to the house

-          how the building dealt with the sloping site, for example did the scheme rely on major earthworks?

-          what devices had been used to create areas of shelter and intimacy, given that the site is quite exposed

-          how entrants had dealt with the fact that the best views were to the west, which is also the main wind direction

	Back to top
	Back to menu

Commentary

Most entrants had proposed to build on the suggested site and few alternatives were proposed.  This made comparison easier. A number of the entries were quickly excluded because of a lack of information or consideration of the setting of their design on a slope. Given the importance of the relationship of the house both to its immediate and general settings required by the brief and PPG7, more information on these key aspects was considered essential.

It was also clear that a number of entrants struggled with the massing problems created by the main elements ie the house, the underground pool, and the outbuildings. In several cases a good house design was marred by insensitive handling of the adjoining buildings. It was also evident that the underground pool had caused problems.

The shortlisted entries were therefore those who most successfully addressed these design challenges and integrated the house, outbuildings and site.

Most of the traditional designs followed classical lines, with varying degrees of skill. Those who felt at home with this tradition were able to produce fluid and interesting designs, many of considerable harmony and beauty. Others struggled with the language and ended up either well proportioned but visually sterile, or in the least successful cases, the bolted-together pastiche which has given classical architecture a bad name.

The Panel noted the paucity of other traditional design approaches, for example those which reinterpreted the Cotswold vernacular, or the Arts and Crafts movement which had  a strong influence in the area.

Several interesting contemporary solutions were ill suited to the site. Some were too fussy and many perched uneasily on the land and there was a general tendency towards buildings which were institutional rather than domestic in scale and feel. It was felt that an opportunity to add a contemporary country house to the tradition had proved elusive.

The great majority of schemes were well presented.  The Panel was impressed by the thought, creativity, level of skill and detail in the schemes.  It was particularly interesting to note the number of hand drawn entries as opposed to computer generated images, even for the more contemporary solutions. Some of the Panel wondered whether greater use of CAD 3D modelling and photomontages could have helped some of the entries demonstrate better how their proposals related to the site and setting.

After careful consideration of all the designs, the number of entries was reduced to 24, numbered as follows:

4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 21, 24, 28, 29, 31, 40, 41, 44, 45, 49, 52, 64, 65, 72, 73, 80, 82, 83, 84

Note: these schemes are identified on page 5 of this report.

The Panel then identified from the above those entries that stood out as the best 5 (schemes 44, 28, 82, 65 and 11).  These designs were brought to the table to use as a benchmark against the other shortlisted schemes. Several of the remaining shortlisted schemes were rejected at this point for various reasons.  Scheme 31 whilst a good design, didn’t quite relate to the setting.  Likewise scheme 45 was good but wouldn’t it was felt work in this landscape and the design made little effort to take account of the slope.  Scheme 72 was thought to be the best of the vernacular designs, but lacked the detail of other schemes. Scheme 64 was another good attempt at the vernacular, and benefited from good planning. Scheme 83 whilst a good design suffered from poor planning and had not sold itself well in its presentation. Scheme 80 on further reflection appeared too large and out of proportion, and the internal planning was not good.  Scheme 40 showed a promising entrance and a good sketching style that was liked by the Panel, but some areas in the design were unresolved. Scheme 14 was another scheme with planning problems, although the Panel particularly liked the courtyard.  Scheme 9 showed good analysis, created some excellent spaces, and unlike many schemes, had managed to get the barn in proportion to the house. 

With so many outstanding entries, the Panel agreed to award commendations to the following schemes.  Scheme 73 was beautifully drawn and worthy of an award but not a contender for the final shortlist. Scheme 84 was also fantastically drawn.  The author clearly had understood how to make the dynamics work, but the barn had seemed to dwarf the house and there appeared to be no coherence to the rear elevation.  Scheme 52 had reinterpreted the Palladian villa into a modern form.  Whilst a good reinterpretation of the classic, the poor computer generated graphics gave the scheme a ‘cold’ feel and the impression that the scheme would dominate the landscape. Scheme 44 was also awarded a commendation.

The three remaining schemes, numbers 28, 65 and 82 were all outstanding and all members of the Panel agreed that these should proceed to the final interview stage.  At this point the Declaration Forms were opened to reveal the names of the authors and interviews were held the following Monday.

	Back to top
	Back to menu

Stage 2 Final Assessment : 26 November 2001

Each architect was invited to give a short presentation of their design, to be followed by questions from the Panel.  All three finalists work was felt to be of outstanding quality in terms of design and architectural merit.  A summary of the Panel’s comments is as follows:

Scheme 28

Peter Cooke, Donald Insall Associates

This scheme had developed one of the most interesting internal layouts of all the projects submitted, and showed consummate skill in the handling of internal spaces. The east elevation provided an attractive approach to the house and a skilfully developed forecourt area.  There were some concerns over the conservatory and the undercroft.  It was felt that the elevational treatment, although very well executed, might be too articulated for the area.  This scheme was awarded Third Prize.

Scheme 65

Taida Skaljic

The author had clearly undertaken an impressive amount of research and historical analysis of the site, and produced an attractive Italianate villa.  The scheme (in particular the main house) worked well with the landscape and the contours and at interview the architect’s enthusiasm and insight was welcomed by the Panel.  Although the main house was beautifully executed, the design of the outbuildings was bulky and unresolved and could not be ignored in the final vote. There were also concerns over the total floor area of the scheme which exceeded the brief by a significant margin.  The Panel agreed to award this design Second Prize.

Scheme 82

Craig Hamilton

This scheme was for a classic villa in the Palladian style.  The author adhered closely to the brief, and designed a most attractive and pleasing scheme which was felt to work well with the landscape and setting.  This was also the best presented of all the submissions, and communicated very directly the superlative quality and thoroughness of fine detailing of the design.

The scheme developed the traditional form of the classical idiom in an idiosyncratic way, treating architecture as a sculptural form.  The author aimed to extend as well as continue the tradition of the country house and had, in the view of the Panel, succeeded. Integration of the main house with the outbuildings was handled with a skill not seen in any of the other submissions and ended up as positive contributions to the whole rather than disparate elements. The integration of the orangery was also very skilful. The external detailing was simple, understated, and elegant. The end result was a design which not only satisfied fully the criteria set out in the brief, but would also greatly enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings.  The Panel unanimously agreed to award this scheme First Prize.

The Jury Panel consisted of:

William Bertram RIBA, Bertram of Bath, formerly Trustee of Bath Preservation Trust

Gerald Cadogan, MA, FSA, Property Correspondent for the Financial Times

Michael Hill, BA DipArch RIBA IHBC, Architectural Historian, Author, freelance conservation consultant, formerly Conservation Architect at Cotswold District Council

Tim Mowl, MA Dphil FSA, Lecturer Bristol University, Author and freelance consultant on architecture and landscape gardening, formerly Architectural Advisor to the Bath Preservation Trust, and South West regional representative of the Georgian Group

Peter Yiangou  AADip, Peter Yiangou Associates, RIBA Assessor and Chair of Panel

Fionna Cardale, co-promoter

	Back to top
	Back to menu

Addendum

The winning design has been further developed and refined in consultation with the sponsors, in accordance with normal practice.  The refined scheme was subsequently reviewed by the RIBA Assessor and deemed to be consistent with the winning submission.  Mr Hamilton’s design will be the subject of a planning application by the Sponsors to be submitted later this year.

Identification of schemes referred to above:

Scheme no.

4              Duncan Moss, Twickenham

5              Dominique Dreosbehe, Gregory Vanasten ‘Morpheea’ Belgium

9              Zambelli Friend Architects, London

11            Christopher Smallwood Architects, London

14            Evans & Shalev Architects, London

21            Julian Bicknell Associates, /The Landscape Partnership London

24            Darren Cater, Cater Day Architects, Moreton in the Marsh

28            Peter Cooke, Donald Insall Associates, London - THIRD PRIZE

29            Verbeer & Bell Architects, London

31            Keith Bishop, Malvern

40            Robert Franklin Architects, Oxford

41            Rodney Melville & Partners, Leamington Spa

44            Edward Nash, Edward Nash Partnership, Bath - COMMENDATION

45            Wyvern Architects, Swindon

49            Dil Green, London

52            Christopher Sale, Rider Sale Associates, Cambridge - COMMENDATION

64            Bradford Charrington Architects, Hillesley, Glos

65            Taida Skaljic, Winchester - SECOND PRIZE

72            Snell David Architects, London

73            Robert Soundy, Guatemala - COMMENDATION

80            Studio Andrea Pacciani,/Studio Bontempi di Pier Carlo Bontempi,Parma, Italy

82            Craig Hamilton, Hundred House, Powys - FIRST PRIZE

83            John Pardey, Lymington, Hants

84                  Rodney Black, Geary & Black Architects, Colchester - COMMENDATION

Biographical note on Craig Hamilton

Craig Hamilton studied architecture at the University of Natal (1979-1984) where he was awarded the Geoffrey Le Seuer scholarship (1982) and a distinction for his final thesis design.  In 1986 he was awarded the Bovis prize for an architectural watercolour on the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition.  He completed the RIBA Part III studies while working with Michael Reardon and Associates in Warwickshire (1986-91) and started his own practice in 1991.

Craig Hamilton is a design architect whose work is directly informed by his studies of Classical architecture and by his conservation work on historic buildings.  He received the Stratford District Council Conservation award for the restoration of Admington Hall in Warwickshire (1997) and the CPRW award for the restoration of the ‘Cloister’ and garden structures at Aberglasney Historic Garden (2001).  He has recently completed a major restoration of the Grade I mansion, Mynde Park, in Herefordshire and has this year been appointed as Conservation Architect for the early 18^th C. Grade I Llanelly House in South Wales.

In 1998 Craig Hamilton designed a new hunting lodge in Scotland, which was completed in August 2001.  It is designed along Scottish Palladian lines and influenced by the work of Sir Robert Bruce.  Another recent example of Hamilton’s work includes a new Belvedere folly in Herefordshire, showing references to the forms and ideas of the early Italian Renaissance architects Brunelleschi and Mauro Codussi.  Here, for the first time, he incorporated one of his own sculptures, a bust of a young boy carved in stone, into the roundel above the entrance.  This new departure reflects Hamilton’s ongoing interest in and involvement with architecture and sculpture in the Classical tradition.

Other diverse projects include further restoration work for the Aberglasney Historic Garden in Wales and the design of garden structures at Kilmarth, Daphne du Maurier’s last residence, in Cornwall.

The design for the RIBA Country House competition is based on the Palladian farmhouse villa form together with elements from the Caroline house form and includes early 18^th C Palladian elements in the design of the central block.  The design is characterised and influenced by subtle mannerist detailing derived from Michaelangelo’s early architectural work in Florence.

	Back to top
	Back to menu