28 Jul 2021
A step closer to beauty?
Last week saw the government publish their response to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Model Design Code consultation. On the same day government also launched the new Office for Place, a National Model Design Code and a revised version of the NPPF. Robert Jenrick declared this as marking "a change in direction for housing and planning”. He went on to say, “we’re putting beauty back at the heart of how we build”, explaining that he had chosen the work ‘back’ deliberately as “we can do better than we have done in recent decades”.
The updated version of the NPPF replaces the previous framework published in March 2012, revised in July 2018 and updated in February 2019. When, or perhaps more accurately IF, the long-promised and hotly contested Planning Bill is introduced, then this version of the NPPF will have to be completely rewritten. However, for now, it continues to set out the government’s planning polices for England and must be taken into account by local authorities (LAs) in preparing development plans. It also remains a material consideration in planning decisions.
So, what are the key elements of what has changed in the NPPF? Here are our top three:
The social objective of the NPPF has been amended so that it now includes the fostering of “well designed, beautiful and safe places”. The concept of ‘beauty’ is now included in a number of policies, including in the context of large-scale residential developments, which are expected to contain a variety of “well-designed and beautiful homes to meet the needs of different groups in the community”.
The NPPF also now mandates that all local planning authorities create design guides or codes consistent with the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code. These can be produced as either part of a local plan or as a supplementary planning document. They can also be prepared at an area-wide, neighbourhood or site-specific scale – and can be prepared by landowners or developers for their own sites. All guides and codes should be based on “effective community engagement and reflect local aspirations for the development of their area” – quite an ambitious aspiration.
Significantly the revised NPPF does not actually define what it means by ‘beauty’, and this lack of clarity is likely to be problematic as it is arguably a subjective term with the potential to overlook truly innovative design if it is taken to mean ‘traditional’. Only in the government response to the consultation is a little more clarity offered on inclusion of the term ‘beautiful’:
“this has been included in the Framework in response to the recommendations of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. This should be read as a high-level statement of ambition rather than a policy test. The government would encourage local planning authorities, communities and developers to work together to decide what beautiful homes, buildings and places should look like in their area. This should be reflected in local plans, neighbourhood plans, design guides and codes, taking into account government guidance on design”
The revised NPPFs focus on ‘beauty’ seems entirely at odds with what the government is simultaneously pursuing in terms of extending the use of permitted development rights (PDR). The new NPPF provides a significant tightening up around the use of article 4 directions, limiting them to the smallest geographical areas possible. Article 4 directions are an important tool (an essentially currently the only tool) for LAs to resist uses where they consider the blanket use of PDR would otherwise cause harm. The updated NPPF makes it clear that LAs should only use article 4 directions to prevent the conversion of non-residential property to homes under permitted development rights if it is “necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts”. The new wording says that it is “very unlikely” an article 4 direction could now extend to a whole town centre. It is our view that this continued rolling back of regulatory control will potentially have impacts on housing quality and design, the provision of sufficient physical and social infrastructure, and LAs’ abilities to ‘plan’ to meet the needs of their communities.
Whilst few would disagree the amendments could have gone further to comprehensively align the NPPF with achieving the national net zero target, the revised NPPF does contains a number of environment-related policy changes. Changes to the NPPF mean plans now must “promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change; and adapt to its effects”. The NPPF mandates that policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined and that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards).
Overall there weren’t really any great surprises in the NPPF revisions and some have argued that it is the omission in the redrafting which are more significant than what was actually included. With more fundamental reform potentially just around the corner we will watch with interest to see what happens next.
Hannah Keilloh is a policy and practice officer at the Chartered Institute of Housing. She leads on all policy work surrounding planning. Hannah is member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
