Legislation with a focus on design quality is rare. Only two times, that I know of, has design quality been singled out for a mention in English planning legislation. Usually, it is a matter for policy and guidance only, perhaps reflecting the ambivalence that successive governments have demonstrated towards the subject, or maybe a sense that design quality does not require the stick of legislation.
Almost exactly fifteen years ago I wrote a blog with the title Good design – it’s the law! The piece focussed on the first occasion that design quality found its way into legislation, care of the 2008 Planning Act (which amended the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act of 2004). Amongst other things, this laid down a legal requirement that the Secretary of State, when setting out national planning policy, and local authorities, when exercising their development plan functions, should “have regard to the desirability of achieving good design”. The instigators of these late amendments to the then Planning Bill in the House of Lords had hoped that local expectations would be raised and that hence forth good design would be viewed as an obligation rather than part of a wholly wish list never actually delivered.
Unfortunately, the provisions were never publicised and were soon forgotten in the turmoil of the financial crash and the austerity years that followed. These swept away much of the urban design governance infrastructure (nationally and locally) that would have been required to put any enhanced practices into effect. The result was initially a lost decade when design quality declined and then stagnated as (too often) de-skilled local authorities allowed (too often) disinterested developers to deliver mediocre and poor quality housing development across the country. This was followed by five years in which we have witnessed a gradual re-engagement of government in design and some attempt to row back on the ‘lost years’. Late last year it culminated in provisions of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that for a second time (amongst many other things) sought to use national legislation to focus greater attention on design quality.
So will a legislative approach be any more successful this time?
The 2008 amendments amounted to little more than a rather amorphous and undefined assertion which local authorities (and the Secretary of State) could interpret in many ways – or effectively ignore. The new legislation, by contrast, is more specific. Under the heading ‘Design code for whole area’ it states: “A local planning authority must ensure that, for every part of their area, the development plan includes requirements with respect to design that relate to development, or development of a particular description, which the authority consider should be met for planning permission for the development to be granted”. The implication is (although it never quite says it) that each local planning authority should produce an authority-wide design code.
Once stated (sort of), the requirement is immediately watered down with two provisos:
- that there is no need for design requirements for every description of development for every part of a local authority area
- that there is no need for requirements in relation to every aspect of design.
Like the previous legislation, there is a lot of interpretation in all of this. To my mind this is actually quite sensible as I have always argued that authorities should concentrate their limited design resources and efforts where it matters (preferably on key sites) and on the issues that are most important locally, starting with what they already have in place and building from there. At the same time, it results in a system in which every authority will understand the requirements differently, opening the possibility that some hard-pressed local authorities will see the provisions as an invitation to ‘business as usual’. In other words, to doing little or nothing beyond their existing, too often ineffective, policies and practices that are failing to deal with poor quality design outcomes.
Perhaps anticipating this, the Act gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene where a local planning authority “fails to ensure design code”. But does this simply lump discretion (what it means) upon discretion (where it applies) upon discretion (what form it will take) upon discretion (is it good enough)? The danger is that there is enough wiggle room for another 15 years of mediocre and poor quality design.
So will the legislation ensure better design quality?
The lesson from 2008 is that, in isolation, the new legislation will not deliver better design. So what is different this time? The answer is the ongoing engagement of government that, in order to deliver on its objectives, will need to back the hard legislative provisions with soft persuasive efforts.
This seems likely, at least in the short-term, as the current government is four-square behind the requirement that design codes should be produced. The opposition (on current trends the next government) has also made overtures in this direction, suggesting potential for support over the long-term as well. Thus while in 2008 the then government did not instigate the legislative provisions and interests quickly and progressively moved away from a concern for design quality, in 2024 government and its new offspring, the Office for Place, are actively using their soft powers (information, persuasion, support, guidance, etc.) to help to ensure delivery – at least of the design codes. And design codes, evidence has suggested, can be very effective means to help deliver better quality development.
I conclude this blog with exactly the same words that I concluded the 2008 one. “As we know, good design is not something that is readily available off-the-shelf, it requires a skilled infrastructure on both sides of the development process, allied with a willingness to invest in the necessary time and resources to ensure its delivery. If we want it, we will need far more than lines on paper, no matter how influential, to deliver it. Nevertheless, as a further piece in an ever more sophisticated national framework that is pursuing better design, this legislation is to be welcomed. One can only hope that over time it has the profound impact on local practice that its originators desire to achieve”.
In 2008 my optimism was misplaced. Let’s hope that in fifteen years from now this really is a turning point and, at that time, we can look back with a far more positive story to tell.
Matthew Carmona
Professor of Planning & Urban Design
The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL
Matthew Carmona 