Does quality design matter in the midst of a housing crisis?

Despite a growing chasm in social housing provision, lack of family homes, under-occupation among Britain’s ageing population and a dire need for new, quality housing, major, medium and minor housebuilders, developers and promoters alike still share the same issue of getting stuck in the planning system.

The newly-elected government, however, has promised 1.5 million new homes, reform to the NPPF and 300 additional planning officers, and demonstrated commitment by ministers to intervene in some planning proposals and decisions – providing some hope for the sector.

But what more can and should be done?

Facilitated by design and planning consultancy Marrons, experts from across design, land promotion, legal, planning and housebuilding came together to debate the importance of high-quality design in the midst of a housing crisis and the ‘broken’ planning system – making recommendations for improvement and discussing whether we should be using a carrot or a stick approach to get the job done.

RECOMMENDATION: Simplify design guidance

“I’d like the Office for Place to supply good and bad examples of design, open the debate and provide a guide,” said Stuart Field, associate planning director at L&Q Estates.

Charlotte Lewis, group design director at Richborough, added: “Local design guides are helpful but they can often be very outdated, which stifles creativity and dulls down opportunities for urban designers and architects to explore housing design.

“The amount of design policy and guidance we must address at outline stage can be sometimes overwhelming, complex and often contradictory, with rigid guidelines and inflexible building distances.

“An alternative way is to use site briefs and design codes, using the National Model Design Code as a basis to agree the scope, content and vision for new development with councils and stakeholders at the earliest stage.

“Codes work best when they are straight forward, clear and site specific, and also when they give designers the flexibility to be creative and optioneer. And they should consider housebuilding requirements too, aspects such as efficiency, phasing and delivery, so visions for outline schemes translate well into detailed designs”.

Design partner at Marrons Luke Hillson said: “As a designer, there is often a large raft of design guidance at national, regional and local level, some of which even conflicts with itself. Clear and concise design guidance would provide both local authorities and

applicants with clarity on the requirements and expectations of future developments and places.”

RECOMMENDATION: Engage with the private sector

“There is a real hesitancy from local authorities to engage with private developers because they are concerned about ‘pre-determination’, but legislation should allow for early engagement and discussion on schemes,” said Sandra Ford, planning director at Marrons.

“I agree,” added Charlotte. “Decision makers could be part of the overall process rather than focussing on the end. It would provide so much more context as to how and why designs evolve the way they do and would also create better opportunities for questions along the way.”

Anna Cartledge, partner at Shakespeare Martineau, agreed. She said: “Frequently housebuilders and developers will be willing to contribute to providing a local planning authority with ring-fenced resource, particularly where there are knotty issues that need to be unlocked. The mindset needs to continue to move towards public and private sectors working in harmony.”

RECOMMENDATION: Understand the DNA of a place

“It’s important we use more facts and data to prove the benefit of our projects for future communities,” explained Matt Bean, senior land manager at Gleeson Land.

“Take a look at the wider community and what facilities they are lacking and bring that into the design application. Take a look at the demographic make-up; for example, does the area need an influx of younger families to sustain existing facilities? Does it need additional cemetery space or a new school? Does our design allow for people to age in place?”

Sandra believed it should be down to the councils to be clearer on what they want. She said: “Developers and designers are not mind readers. When I worked for councils previously, the council would provide a design brief for a key opportunity site or prepare a spatial framework plan of what the local area needed.

“Unfortunately, there aren’t the people to do this now, but government should be investing in this and being clear to councils that they are place makers – they need to set out their stall rather than leave it to developers and designers to make an educated guess, which is more often than not ‘wrong’.”

Adding to this, Matt said: “There should be more scrutiny on what developments need to deliver. Everything comes at a cost, so lay out what exactly is important to the development, community and local area.

“No project can be all things to all people, we need to prioritise. Attention needs to be given to the potential of overengineering a scheme, which, if requested, by statutory consultees can have the knock-on effect of stopping the ability of other more obvious social amenities to come forward as part of the development due to the cost.”

RECOMMENDATION: Pool funding regimes

“We find ourselves competing for funding,” said Sandra. “Unfortunately, government departments work in silos and there are so many different funding regimes, why not pool these to make it simpler, clearer and more efficient?

“It is not the best use of local authority resources to constantly be applying and bidding for funding to secure the necessary infrastructure to support the growth within their area and, in essence, competing against other areas.”

It was suggested that funds and fees generated through the development and planning process should be safeguarded to benefit the place and new community it has been funded by, through new schools and improved public realm for instance, rather than using it for non-related sectors within the local authority.

“Not ring fencing the planning application fee was a missed opportunity to ensure the money from planning fees was invested directly back into planning departments,” said Sandra.

RECOMMENDATION: Improve education, skills and representation within the LPA and planning committees

Danielle Bassi, senior land and planning manager at Taylor Wimpey Midlands, called for education within councils to better understand the economic and social benefits of regeneration and new homes. She said: “The best way to get investment in your local area is through housebuilders. You want more schools, doctors’ surgeries or spending in your high streets? Then you need more homes.”

Agreeing, Matt added: “The top-down message needs to change. Housing delivery, and development more generally, will be part of the answer to the financial and public amenity issues that so many local authorities are facing.”

Danielle continued: “We also need better representation among the planning committee. As essentially it’s a voluntary position, we are not getting young people applying. Instead, it’s the out-of-touch minority making decisions for the majority.”

Jonathan Dyke, strategic land director at IM Land, added: “We’re beholden to a system where you can go above and beyond, provide extensive documentation and detail only for a committee to reject it because they simply ‘don’t like it’. It’s too subjective; there is not enough in the way of training provided to planning committee members to give an objective view.”

RECOMMENDATION: Transfer decision making on major regeneration projects to regional or central level

Acknowledging that plans are often rejected on the basis of design, Stuart said: “One solution is that all schemes of a certain size could go through a design review panel before it goes to planning committee so the committee is confident the designs are sound.”

Taking this one step further, Danielle suggested a full centralisation to planning committees, while Jonathan wanted to see major applications taken away from local politicians.

Anna agreed with this sentiment. She said: “There is a need to take power out of the hands of the local authority and accountability held in a body akin to Homes England or the Office for Place.”

RECOMMENDATION: Overhaul the planning system

Many of the experts agreed that design quality matters – but there will always be a balance between profit and design.

Charlotte added: “Councils require vast amounts of detailed information to determine an outline planning application these days. It’s not always necessary – especially so for placemaking. Design principles and development parameters of a scheme just need to be clear and tested to establish a robust framework for detailed designs to evolve.”

There were also concerns that limitations and politics in the way the system is set up forces developers to buy off the outline, which leads to a compromise on design and flexibility.

Luke added: “I agree it’s a tricky balance between being too detailed, which may stifle innovation, but also giving certainty of design quality and delivery of great places.”

Anna added: “But the planning process is supposed to be front-loaded. And in the current system, the detail should be included – this is what the LPA wants.”

Danielle said: “It comes back to supply and demand. The limited supply of land made available through the planning system is driving up costs and, in turn, impacting the overall freedom to be creative with design.”

Summing up, Luke said: “The new Labour government has been clear that it will take a pro-development approach to the reform of the planning system; this should be supported and encouraged with an acknowledgement that the necessity for design quality and placemaking is intrinsic as part of this.” For more information about housing need, download our Housing 2040 report now.