Encouragingly, the planning reforms talk to putting climate change and health and wellbeing (resilience) at the forefront. Planning and health have historically been very close siblings but of recent times they have grown apart. This is an opportunity to put health (climate and human) back as a central purpose (perhaps thecentral purpose) for planning. 

 

This is a consultation document after all, but I would have liked to have seen the strength of this initial statement permeating more deeply than it does. There are numerous references to climate change but not much is new. There is very little direct reference to health. This is concerning at a time when the science linking poor health and the environment has never been clearer. 

 

The government says that it wants the reformed system to play a proactive role in promoting environmental recovery and long-term sustainability and positively in a revised NPPF which is due this autumn. Those with climate and health resilience at the forefront of their minds will be hoping that the NPPF delivers on what’s needed.

 

 

I welcome the government’s drive to front-load the planning process, to have clear and more agile plans and to support schemes which comply with better local guidance around design and sustainability. Like many though, I struggle to see how guidance can be produced quickly and effectively which can successfully process the range of factors and parameters to enable great design. Perhaps it would be easier and more effective to clarify what does not represent good design in a specific location rather than what is?  

 

Also, how do resource starved Local Authorities go about this? It feels like a potentially monumental task requiring input and expertise from across the field. This doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t try – as unfortunately there are still far too many examples of mediocre and bad designs. In a world where almost everything in design terms has been tried before, this is almost incomprehensible. I therefore can see a role for ‘pattern books’ that highlight some great examples across a range of development / locations typologies. 

 

The proposed front-loading of the planning process – with key issues relating to the allocation, delivery and design of strategic housing sites resolved as part of the Local Plan process and a streamlined process thereafter – must be welcomed. However, given the additional work involved in such a front-loaded process, there are questions around whether Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate will realistically be able to meet the identified 30-month timescale.

 

The commitment to the 300,000 homes per annum national requirement, and to the production of a revised ‘standard method’ to achieve it, is important. So is the intent that this is binding on each local authority. This approach avoids the need for a legal ‘duty to cooperate’ – a system which has never operated as intended in the absence of more strategic planning. 

 

 

The focus of the reforms is undoubtedly on housing delivery and speeding up development. The objectives of bringing forward further residential development and other uses in and around town centres is welcomed, as is providing family housing close to amenities. Such development can help bring land back into active use and, crucially, provide additional footfall to support existing businesses. However, in respect of the potential implications of proposed changes on retail and town centre development, it is exceptionally light. 

 

In terms of the future consideration of new proposals for main town centre uses, the mechanism for identifying the scope of ‘specified appropriate uses’ will be vital in ensuring that the right types of development are brought forward in the right location. Whilst the government seeks to simplify the plan-making process (and reduce the volume of evidence-based documents), I envisage a continued need for the local planning authority and interested parties to carefully consider the scope for additional commercial development with reference to baseline data. This is important to ensure that our town centres accommodate a range of facilities and have the potential to support linked trips, thereby helping to provide for their resilience in light of ongoing and significant pressures and the general movement towards hyperlocalism.

Nexus Planning is an award-winning, independent consultancy operated and managed by Chartered Town Planners with offices in London, Manchester and Reading. Its highly skilled team of planning and regeneration consultants provides market-leading planning, regeneration and development advice to both the private and public sectors. Nexus was established in 2013 and won RTPI Planning Consultancy of the Year 2020 earlier this year.