The Planning White Paper – UDG Webinar Series

The Government’s Planning White Paper on the future of planning Delivering Quality Towns and Cities has provoked numerous reactions, both positive and negative. The UDG organised four lunchtime online debates on successive Fridays, each one addressing a particular issue in the document, and all following a similar format: four or five short presentations followed by a Q&A session. The overall question was whether this proposed major shake-up of the planning system would produce or encourage better urban design.

STRATEGIC ISSUES

The first session chaired by Leo Hammond, started with Wei Yang, RTPI Vice President, who wondered what was meant by the future, and suggested that the climate change emergency was the main challenge that would affect generations to come. As land that can be developed is very limited, we need to use it much more efficiently, integrating nature, people and land in a strategic approach to planning. Jenny Raggett of Transport for New Homes thought that the White Paper’s division of land into ‘growth, renewal and protected’ categories was far too simplistic. Land for development needs to be designated on the basis of reliable data, quality is as important as quantity, and transport needs to be at the centre of the planning process. Lynda Addison of the Transport Planning Society recognised that the planning system needed improvement and, like the previous speakers, emphasised the interconnection between transport, land uses and telecommunications. While she saw some advantages in the White Paper, such as the inclusion of Manual for Streets, she thought it left too many questions unanswered, particularly on the sustainability of places, to enable her to give a positive verdict. Roger Evans of Studio REAL warned that to achieve the current housing targets, an area of land the size of Surrey would be needed. The current system of allocating land for development based on spreadsheets is totally unsustainable and inevitably leads to poor urban form. The alternative is an approach to urban design that starts with an urban character assessment and moves up and down the scales from the sub-regional, through the town and the place, to the detailed design.

DIGITAL FUTURES

During the second session chaired by Katja Stille, the value and importance of digital data was discussed by four speakers: Sue James of The Edge, Chris Sharpe of Digital Futures, architect and urban designer Leslie Howson, and Liz Reynolds of Think Deep UK. They all emphasised the importance of having good quality data, accessible to all and shared by all. Data could have a great variety of applications, including communicating with the general public, but it would need resources and training for staff and the public. Who would be responsible for collecting and holding the information was also an issue raised.

DESIGN CODES AND GUIDANCE

The third session was again chaired by Leo Hammond, who reminded the audience that around 150 years ago housing byelaws were a form of design guidelines. He had several questions for the speakers and in particular asked what should we code for and how far should codes go. Professor Matthew Carmona was the first to speak warning that codes would not be a panacea and would not work for large areas, such as a whole district. He suggested that good codes were site-specific and should provide inspiration, and not be regulatory. An urban designer should be involved in drafting codes and these should be flexible, tangible and gradual. Design review would also be essential in implementing the codes. He described different levels of coding with ‘design-obsessed’ at one extreme and ‘everything but the kitchen sink’ at the other. He suggested that the best codes dealt with integrated essentials, and were pared back and site-specific. Finally Matthew expressed concern that the White Paper would not deliver what was needed. Rob Cowan of Urban Design Skills followed with similar worries. He doubted that the resources would be provided and thought that even now there were so many kinds of design guides that they confuse rather than help. He showed examples of codes that prescribe the details but not the essentials, the opposite of what needs to happen. He pointed out that, like masterplans, codes are often not implemented, and wondered how monitoring and enforcement could be effective.

Next, Katja Stille of Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design emphasised the need to start with a clear and shared vision and to base the work on the existing local characteristics and robust information on the area. Collaboration between all stakeholders and clear communication were also essential for the success of coding. Like previous speakers, she thought that codes and guidelines had to be inspirational and achieve a balance between flexibility and prescription. Alexis Butterfield of Pollard Thomas Edwards architects described the process of developing the design code for Wing near Cambridge, starting with a vision developed with the landowner, in dialogue with the local district council. He showed sample pages from the guide and suggested that good examples use ‘must’ for what is mandatory and essential, and ‘should’ for what is recommended and desirable. To end the presentations, Trovine Monteiro of Greater Cambridge Shared Planning gave the local authority’s point of view. He emphasised the importance of leadership and building consensus to ensure continuity and develop trust throughout the authority. This means that codes must be clearly connected to development control work. Like others, he was concerned with the skills available in local authorities and thought that a culture change was essential.

DELIVERING QUALITY TOWNS AND CITIES

In the fourth session, chair Katja Stille briefly summarised the previous sessions before stating that this last event aimed to consider all of the issues in the White Paper together. The first speaker Peter Studdert, an independent consultant, suggested that although the White Paper was a muddle, we needed to have a positive attitude and not reject it. He suggested that there were many unanswered questions and issues missing. For instance the White Paper says nothing on regional planning and very little on resources, and some proposals such as the abolition of section 106 contributions and the automatic granting of planning consent were dangerous. Peter suggested that issues outside the scope of the White Paper such as taxation and devolution were at least as important, and that we should adopt the northern European model of planning led by the public sector.

For Helen Flage of the Homes and Communities Agency the White Paper seemed to be only about delivering housing and ignored many other issues such as nature and housing standards. She put forward ten points to be addressed in order to deliver sustainable neighbourhoods, amongst them were ‘define sustainable communities’, ‘plan strategically’ and ‘change the delivery and funding model’. Although speakers and attendees during the four sessions had at various times covered similar points, this was an excellent summary of the points made.

Kenji Starmer of East Devon District Council presented the view from a local authority and based his talk on his experience in Cranbrook, a developer-led new town. The White Paper sees the problem as threefold: not enough housing because not enough land is coming forward; communities do not like what is built in their area; and, developments take too long. Examples of what the Government likes are pretty places such as Belgravia (but also pretty dead), or successful places like Poundbury or Upton, which took ages to be developed, had developers grumbling, and are not representative of what happens in the country. Kenji was sure that the existing system did not work, but was not convinced that the White Paper offered the solutions. Like many others, he felt that the real problem was the dysfunctional land market.

Finally Martina Juvara of Urban Silence summarised her views as five opportunities, one of which ‘pro-active planning’ was neither mentioned nor denied in the White Paper, therefore offering a possible opening. On the other hand, she outlined what was missing: dealing with climate change, the integration of transport and planning, and the levelling up agenda. She ended by stating that communities knew their context better than anyone, and needed funding and technical support.

Numerous questions were raised throughout the four sessions; the chat was buzzing all of the time, making it difficult to follow and impossible to answer all of the questions. The Q&A periods at the end of each session were also rich, showing how interested colleagues were to debate these issues. Recurrent themes were the availability of resources and skills for local authorities, the failure of the land market, the lack of coordination between transport and planning, the need for solid information and for community engagement, and the balance between prescription and inspiration. The White Paper’s vagueness and lack of answers to many questions was raised as worrying, but also as a possible reason to hope for better outcomes in the end. Together with other organisations and on the basis of the wealth of material accumulated during these four events, the UDG will respond to the government. We will have to see whether our voices are being heard and listened to.

Sebastian Loew, architect and planner, writer and consultant