SEED academics respond to UK government’s planning and building announcements.

20 Sep 2024

Academics from SEED’s Department of Planning, Property and Environmental Management have responded to the government's recent announcements on planning and building.

The group highlighted some of the benefits of the proposed changes arising from the proposals, including a focus on quality and quantity as a shift towards liveability. They also commented on the need to avoid a rush to meet substantial targets and ensure a need to build people-centred places and spaces that positively impact everyone.

Ian Mell, Professor in Environmental and Landscape Planning

“The potential removal of beauty as a core planning consideration is a welcome one. Beauty is, at best, subjective and, at its worst, truly malleable to the tastes of a select few. What makes successful, liveable and prosperous is a combination of quality, quantity and responsiveness to what people actually want and need. Houses of decent sizes, with gardens and access to local community resources that are walkable, safe and interactive are more appropriate than prioritizing the design aesthetics of a small number of developers, councillors or ministers.

“By focusing on quality and quantity in terms of developing new homes and towns the Labour government is shifting to the focus of planning towards liveability. Beauty is always needed but not if it hinders provision. The focus on the provision of new homes located with high quality green and open spaces should therefore take precedence. People want to live in nice places that are accessible and supported by local facilities including shops. This can be delivered through a review of size, quality, quantity/massing, and design.”

Dr Philip Black, Senior Lecturer in Urban Design; Director, Manchester Urban Design LAB

“There is much to be positive about regarding the new government's proposals and the commitment to build more homes and new towns. The danger in seeking to hit new large housing targets – especially when past targets have not been met – is that developers prioritise speed over quality. Whilst the potential shift away from ‘beauty’ as a primary planning consideration is a step in the right direction, the notion that permissions cannot be refused on grounds of ‘character’ is potentially problematic.

“Character can often be a shield that LPA’s and councillors use to refuse development on grounds of aesthetic considerations, and seeking to limit this form subjective decision making is necessary. However, ‘character’ remains a critical aspect of ‘quality’ in urban design. The issue is the lack of understating around what constitutes ‘character’ and how it can be assessed. It is not simply replication of the existing (or pastiche) - it is rather an understanding of local context across both physical and natural elements of place. Good design responds to character in a positive way – poor design often neglects it and produces insular design solutions that fail to add wider value.

“The focus must be on more than the quality of homes (whilst important) and extend to how developers and planning authorities provide housing that enhances place. Through better quality public realm provision, green infrastructure, sustainability mobility choices, and sense of place. Developments that are integrated as a part of a wider urban design program that seeks to provide high quality, contextually responsive, people-centred places and spaces that have positive impacts for all. This is particularly necessary for new towns or large-scale developments that should have set targets not only for the number of housing units delivered, but also for quality placemaking. The new government's legacy should not simply be the number of homes they oversee – it should be more ambitious and simultaneously be about lifting the quality of living standards across the country.”

Rachel Kerr, Lecturer in Urban Design

“The revised NPPF proposes some significant changes with regard to design. Whilst the requirement for ‘beauty’ has been removed, there are a series of other changes which have a potentially positive implication for design quality. Paragraph 11, the fundamental presumption in favour of sustainable development, now includes further guidance on decision-taking where policies for the supply of land do not exist or are out of date. In this situation, consideration must be given specifically to the location of the development in the context of sustainable transport (Chapter 9) and achieving well-designed places (Chapter 12).

“There is emphasis on strategic planning, with cross-boundary collaboration highlighted as important for delivering housing numbers. This strategic scale collaboration is critical in the delivery of major infrastructure projects which are integral to the design and delivery of sustainable new towns and communities. New large-scale developments should be designed around a walkable local centre which should include sustainable transport nodes for wider connectivity. These nodes should be designed alongside active uses, health and wellbeing services and community facilities.

“Paragraph 155b highlights that where greenbelt is released, contributions should be made to local or national infrastructure – a priority for sustainable transport infrastructure should be specified here, both for its environmental benefits, but equally for its role in the design of liveable town and local centres.

“There are some further additions related to density, something which has a significant impact on the delivery of walkable, healthy places, as well as on the business cases for sustainable transport projects. The revised document removes the previous paragraph 130 which stated that uplifts in density might be inappropriate if the resulting form is wholly out of character with the existing area. This suggests that priority is being placed on the benefits of increasing density above alignment of design with existing character. This provides an opportunity for new development to reflect the contemporary context and allows for design innovation rather than pastiche, however there is a risk of exploitation – for this reason it is critical that our local planning authorities have the required urban design skills and knowledge, as well as robust design codes and masterplans, to successfully manage the delivery of increased density whilst maintaining design quality.”

Dr Leonard Gibbs, Senior Tutor

“The revised NPPF embodies and emboldens the new Labour government’s commitment to growth by simplifying some elements of the planning regime and imposing high level targets for housing completions on local planning authorities. Whether the changes will deliver the number of new homes and the desired level of social and affordable housing is unclear, especially in view of the lack of capital subsidies available for new social rent housing.

“The new method for calculating housing need is likely to prove contentious as it trebles or doubles the targets in many local authorities. The unintended consequences of vast increases in the targets in local authorities including Redcar and Cleveland, Burnley, Hyndburn, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen runs the risk of building too much new housing in places where demand has not significantly increased over the years. This further increases the possibility of deterioration of deprived areas and possible abandonment. Rather than adopt a top-down method imposed throughout all areas some element of devolution and sensitivity to local circumstances could help garner more support. This is likely to be a difficult national and local play off, which will become more important in the next round of local elections.

“In local planning areas which lack brownfield sites the pressure to build within green belt is likely to intensify and the caveat around 50% affordable housing (with an unspecified proportion of social rent) being subject to viability is likely to be tested. It is also disappointing that the government has retained the notion of affordable housing, when the concept as it stands has come under considerable criticism around the 80% of average rents requirement.

“A new approach to defining affordability for planning purposes would be welcome. The transitional arrangements for LPAs going through the local plan process are also likely to require further refinement as LPAs will have to identify large new sites to meet the new housing requirements. Overall, there are many welcome clarities in the draft alongside recognition of the need to speed up the planning process.”

Link to government consultation: Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system