The National Planning Policy Framework was a missed opportunity for cities

A generic picture of some houses under construction. Image: Getty.

Some weeks ago, the government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which will act as the new rulebook for planning in English cities for the foreseeable future. The draft version – which we at the Centre for Cities responded to in March – has remained largely intact, and most of the edits have tweaked the emphasis and scope of particular policies.

Nevertheless, there have been two changes which have particular implications for the cities across the country.

Reducing the required quota of small sites in local development plans

Originally the government proposed that 20 per cent of development in local plans should be to small sites of less than half a hectare, to help small builders develop cheaper homes.

This has now been changed to 10 per cent for sites smaller than one hectare, responding to criticism – including ours – that the proposed quota was too high. We feared that increasing demand for small sites risked pushing up the prices of small plots of land, therefore making it difficult for small builders to actually deliver cheaper housing; so this change is a positive step by the government

Giving cities more flexibility over high street planning

The government has also acknowledged that planning for high streets and town centres needs to be more flexible than it initially suggested. As such, it has removed the need to define primary and secondary frontages for retail and leisure uses – giving places more scope over whether high street commercial space is used for shops, or for restaurants, cinemas and other types for business instead.

The new flexibility is welcome, but we shouldn’t expect it to have a huge impact in cities which have struggling high streets. As our recent report Building Blocks shows, the key challenge for these kinds of places is increasing demand in their city centres for other uses, and particularly knowledge-intensive businesses. This will make the biggest difference in bringing people into city centres and increasing footfall for retail and leisure. Ultimately, the most important factors in that respect will be addressing skills gaps and improving infrastructure and transport links.

More broadly, cities remain neglected in the NPPF. Urban areas make up 54 per cent of the population and 60 per cent of jobs, but only 8 per cent of the UK’s land. As a result, how we plan the use of valuable land in cities is the most important way planning affects national productivity, the economy, and the standard of living.


Yet despite the presence of two separate sections for rural housing and the rural economy, no such sections have been written for cities. The word ‘rural’ appears 27 times in the NPPF, compared to 11 mentions for ‘urban’: of these, 6 refer to how the green belt should interact with urban areas.

The omission of cities has consequences not just for the economy, but also for our environment. For instance, the section on climate change covers how construction and planning for renewable energy can reduce carbon emissions, but neglects to mention how city living and denser communities reduce the inefficient use of energy and commuter journeys by car. This lack of attention on cities is a missed opportunity.

It may well be that James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, is planning to focus more on urban planning issues in the upcoming Devolution Framework (due to be published in the autumn). One step he should consider is to extend spatial strategy powers to the remaining metro mayors who lack them (Tees Valley and West Midlands) and to clarify the role of planning when it comes to cities. The influence of metro mayors in decision-making over the built environment will need to be enhanced if they are to be leaders of their cities.

More generally, cities should have the powers to plan across the whole of their economic geography, while government retains an important policy role for setting the objective of the planning system, and as a watchdog.

Anthony Breach is an economic analyst at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this post first appeared.

The four key recommendations Centre for Cities made to the NPPF can be found here.

 
 
 
 

The Fire Brigades Union’s statement on Theresa May’s resignation is completely damning

Grenfell Tower. Image: Getty.

Just after 10 this morning, Theresa May announced that she would resign as Britain’s prime minister on 7 June. A mere half an hour later, a statement from Royal Institute of British Architects president Ben Derbyshire arrived in my inbox with a ping:

“The news that Theresa May will step down as Prime Minister leaves the country in limbo while the clock ticks down to the latest deadline of 31 October. While much is uncertain, one thing remains clear – a no deal is no option for architecture or the wider construction sector. Whoever becomes the next Prime Minister must focus on taking the country forward with policies beyond Brexit that tackle the major challenges facing the country such as the housing crisis and climate change emergency.”

I was a bit baffled by this – why would the architecture profession try to get its thoughts into a political story? But then Merlin Fulcher of Architects Journal put me right:

Well you know construction is a larger contributor to GDP than financial services, and most of the work UK architects do is for export, and at least half of the largest practice (Foster + Partners) are EU, so there's a lot at stake

— Merlin Fulcher (@merlinfulcher) May 24, 2019

So, the thoughts of the RIBA president are an entirely legitimate thing to send to any construction sector-adjacent journalists who might be writing about today’s big news, and frankly I felt a little silly.

Someone else who should be feeling more than a little silly, though, is Theresa May herself. When listing her government’s achievements, such as they were, she included, setting up “the independent public inquiry into the tragedy at Grenfell Tower” – a fire in a West London public housing block in June 2017 – “to search for the truth, so nothing like it can ever happen again, and so the people who lost their lives that night are never forgotten”.

Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, is having precisely none of this. Here’s his statement:

“Many of the underlying issues at Grenfell were due to unsafe conditions that had been allowed to fester under Tory governments and a council for which Theresa May bears ultimate responsibility. The inquiry she launched has kicked scrutiny of corporate and government interests into the long-grass, denying families and survivors justice, while allowing business as usual to continue for the wealthy. For the outgoing Prime Minister to suggest that her awful response to Grenfell is a proud part of her legacy is, frankly, disgraceful.”

A total of 72 people died in the Grenfell fire. At time of writing, nobody has been prosecuted.

Jonn Elledge is editor of CityMetric and the assistant editor of the New Statesman. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.