Explore our conclusions

2. DESIGN QUALITY

What is proactive planning and why is it a good idea?

We must be more proactive when planning the future shape and form of our villages, towns and cities and the government, institutions and professions should lead a revolution to make this happen. We need a radical step change in collective expectations and actions to improve standards within the everyday built environment. Our planning system has become too reactive and relies on development control, which forces local authority planners to spend their time firefighting rather than thinking creatively about the future shape and form of villages, towns and cities. Everything is open to negotiation for every planning application and, as a result, huge amounts of time and resources are spent on issues that could have been predetermined by a collective vision shaped in collaboration with local communities, neighbourhood forums and PLACE Review Panels. Proactive planning would free up valuable time for local authority planners to develop masterplans and design codes which are supported by local communities, whilst reinvigorating the planning profession and its public perception.

Where are the success stories?

So who is doing the visionary thinking in this country and how is it being resourced? There are good examples of proactive planning happening in areas like Brent, Croydon, Birmingham and Manchester, and this is very often down to strong leadership and the right skills within local authorities. With strong leadership, proactive planning can be done at many different levels by local enterprise partnerships, city authorities, local authorities and neighbourhood forums without adding layers of policies. We should look to other countries like France, Sweden, Denmark and the US (particularly New York) where guidance is given on the shape and form of the built environment in advance, often with the help of private-sector professionals, and it is not limited to land use. This would place less pressure on dwindling resources within planning departments, give more certainty from the outset to developers and creating better-quality places for us all. The lack of proactive planning has a major impact on the housing crisis, too, as in a democratic society such as ours, the only way of persuading those already housed of the benefits of more housing is by presenting a credible vision of the future. Our lack of proactive planning has also been exposed by the recent floods where prevention through adaptation, as they do in countries like Holland, would have been far more effective than control through mitigation. One outcome of the flooding crisis was the clamour for “more planning” in communities and a culture previously hostile to the very nature of planning. We are realising that freedom and planning are not opposed and that more proactive planning would indeed liberate us.

How can we improve the Design Review process?

Design Reviews, where professionals join Panels to review projects and help create better outcomes and better places, should become part of our everyday culture. Places are shaped by many different forces and we have responded by developing a number of different specialisms. For that reason, we should usher in a new era of PLACE Review (Planning, Landscape, Architecture, Conservation and Engineering). By replacing Design Review Panels with PLACE Review Panels, we can ensure that all aspects of the built environment are given equal consideration. We should use information and communications technology to make better use of time for PLACE Review Panels and spread the benefits more widely. At the same time, the culture of these reviews must change and become more collaborative and less judgemental. Issues of taste and style should be much more open, tolerant and diverse given that it is not “either/or” any more between the historical and the modern, and the style wars are a thing of the past.

What should be considered in Design Reviews?

At the present time, Design Reviews tend to be triggered by new planning applications, the majority of which are made by the private sector. Every public body should have access to an independent PLACE Review Panel, with their results published online, and they should operate at a more strategic level. PLACE Reviews should be radically extended to what is already there, including existing high streets, hospitals and housing estates. Unlike many other parts of the world, we live in a country where 80% of the buildings we will have in the year 2050 are already built, so let’s collectively re-imagine their future. There are examples of good placemaking with effective partnerships between public, private and third sectors. The Homes and Communities Agency “Place Spotlight” identifies case studies from around the country and helpfully sets out eight components of great places. Places will only become great if there is civic leadership, whether it’s from politicians, community groups or built environment professionals. It is individuals that make the difference, not policies, and we need more leaders to step forward who truly care about their built environment.

Why should the public and private sectors work more in partnership?

We must recognise the many skills of a private sector hugely experienced here and overseas in planning projects of all scales and all types from infrastructure to housing. The culture of development control often paints the private sector as not being in the public interest, but London’s Great Estates were laid out and still are managed with stewardship that is world renowned. In recent times, developers have opened up docks and riverbanks and built new places like Brindleyplace in Birmingham, Manchester’s Spinningfields district and London’s King’s Cross. It’s not “either/or” any more for the public and private sectors, and we must strive to get the best of both, working together, as one can’t act without the other.

Recommendations:

#19
The PLACE Leadership Council (PLC) outlined in the “Built Environment Policy” section of this document (chapter 5) should work with government and representatives across the industry to bring about a revolution in support of proactive planning in this country. For the sustainability of our villages, towns and cities we have to reduce our reliance on reactive planning which is characterised by the current system of development control (or development management as it is now called).
#20
Local planning authorities could set out a plan for attracting and retaining the best individuals for planning departments. This could include the use of planning fees to recruit more design-literate planners for proactive placemaking teams whose skill sets could be shared by neighbouring authorities.
#21
Local planning authorities should have interactive online forums for projects over a certain size, giving the public better access to planning debates about the future of their neighbourhoods.
#22
Design Review Panels should become PLACE Review Panels (Planning, Landscape, Architecture, Conservation and Engineering) and include professionals from each of these fields. The “Design Review: Principles and Practice” guidance produced by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Cabe at the Design Council, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Landscape Institute (LI) makes the case for panels to be cross professional and underlines the importance of best practice. This guidance should be adopted by all PLACE Review Panels used by local planning authorities. At the same time, they should become less like a crit at architecture school with peers passing judgement, and more enabling and collaborative.
#23
All publicly funded bodies that procure built environment design should have access to independent PLACE Review Panels, and their results should be published online. Panels should conform to the Design Review Principles and Practice guidance produced by Cabe at the Design Council, the RIBA, the RTPI and the LI.
#24
There should be PLACE Reviews of new developments in the public sector that are not subject to normal planning, such as national infrastructure applications subject to the Planning Act 2008 and other significant rail, aviation and road improvements.
#25
There should be PLACE Reviews of existing places such as high streets, hospitals and housing estates.

Why are landscape, urban design and public art overlooked?

The greatest failure of focusing on development control is the quality of the public realm, and we must strengthen the critical contribution of landscape, urban design and public art in making great places. Appropriate funding for landscape and public art should be demanded from developers by local authorities requiring wider contextual plans and financial commitments. Public health can be enormously improved by investing in cycling infrastructure and creating human-scale, pedestrian-friendly spaces. We should look to examples nationally and internationally of high-quality public realm and share the lessons learned, as the RTPI and the Academy of Urbanism do with their awards programmes. There should be reviews of highway regulations and specifications and more focus on design literacy for highway professionals. Some of the worst design impacts over the past fifty years have been from road schemes, with over-engineered junctions and intrusive signage ignoring the context of streets where public life is played out.

Why isn’t design represented in infrastructure panels?

All government decision-making panels for major infrastructure reviews should have design and planning professionals represented. Infrastructure crucially and permanently shapes places, and transport projects must have planners and designers involved from the outset. All government-funded infrastructure projects, whether adapting or building new, must have a masterplan and should instigate early and ongoing PLACE Review. The “design envelope” for the built environment should be agreed in advance, particularly for the public realm affected by new or changed infrastructure.

Is public procurement providing the taxpayer with value for money?

Whilst not covered by the terms of reference for this Review, the way government procures the built environment was a major issue throughout the consultation. The public have a right to better design quality and the procurement system must ensure their taxes are spent in the best possible way. There are good examples where procurement has worked well, like the Olympics, but these are the exception and should be studied and applied more consistently. Government should show leadership by promoting the value of design quality as an important criterion when procuring buildings. Housing standards are also not included in the terms of reference for this Review, and we welcome the aims and objectives of the Housing Standards Review.

Why don’t industry leaders do more for everyday places?

Leadership should come from within the industry, and built environment professionals could connect much more to everyday places and in a more meaningful way. This could begin with industry leaders engaging and empowering the public through education and outreach and contributing more to the debate. We should learn from other creative industries like music, fashion, art and film where there is less separation between the everyday and the elite. Built environment professionals have much to gain from increased public interest in the big issues such as the public realm, sustainability and retrofitting and helping to bring about the culture change that is needed.

Recommendations:

#26
Local planning authorities should follow examples of best practice, where wider contextual plans and appropriate funding for landscape and public art are required from developers.
#27
There should be major reviews of highway regulations and specifications and the design education of highway professionals. All highway schemes could be subject to a credible system of PLACE Review and local authorities should take a lead on implementing these.
#28
All government reviews and decision-making panels for major infrastructure proposals should have planning and design professionals represented.
#29
Department for Transport funds for built environment projects could be conditional on those bidding producing a masterplan, instigating early PLACE Review and agreeing the three-dimensional “design envelope” for the built environment – particularly for the public realm affected by new or changed infrastructure.
Recommendations
#30
PLACE institutions could publish an end-of-year report on publicly funded built environment projects, highlighting successes and failures. This report could be combined with the Prime Minister’s Better Public Building Awards, providing in-depth research through case studies in order to disseminate best practice. An award for design quality could be voted for by the public in an online poll.
#31
Government should review public building procurement policy to clarify the regulations of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) as well as giving sufficient prominence to design criteria. Industry should produce best-practice guidance to reduce the reliance on frameworks and to ensure that design expertise is embedded in the process and that competitions are held for significant projects.
#32
The trade media could publish a list of the UK’s most influential built environment professionals along with commitments from each of them to improving everyday places, through education and outreach. These commitments could be reviewed annually, with professionals having an ongoing dialogue with the public about the big issues through social media.
#33
A panel of high-profile media figures and broadcasters could work with the PLACE institutions and built environment professionals to explore ways of popularising and communicating good design, so that it becomes an assumed but inspiring part of our everyday lives.