Will design codes help unlock the planning system?

The planning system has become an increasingly fraught topic of conversation for many within the construction industry. Views range from those who think it just needs better resourcing to those who believe it requires root and branch reform.

Few are happy with the way things stand. As Victoria Hills, chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute, says: “Public confidence in England’s planning system is at an all-time low.”

Two weeks ago Berkeley Homes announced that it was mounting a legal challenge against the government after Michael Gove blocked its planning application for 165 homes in Kent on “design grounds”. Gove’s intervention went against the advice of a planning inspector. 

Could new government legislation – and specifically design codes – help to unlock the deadlock? 

Proposed changes in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill currently going through parliament will require every local planning authority to produce a design code for its areas. These codes will have “full weight in making decisions on development”. 

The fact that the secretary of state is intervening at such a micro level, and on the complex and highly subjective question of design quality, is a concern to almost everyone in the design, planning and housebuilding sectors. With such uncertainty comes increased costs and, potentially, a growing reluctance to invest in housing.

Many small and medium-sized housebuilders have already left the market because of the perceived risks. Now the major players, such as former Redrow chief Steve Morgan, are accusing the government of setting out to “destroy” the industry.

Gove’s move appears to be part of a wider attempt by his department to drive up design quality in housing. But it is antagonising many within the industry and risks tearing the government apart.

An influential grouping of Conservatives on the centre right believes the problem can be solved by improving design and delivering housing and development that enhances a sense of place. Once people start seeing that new developments can improve the quality of their local environment, they will stop resisting new housing – or at least, that is the theory.

The hope is that introducing design codes will help drive up standards

The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission was an attempt to reframe the planning system around more defined concepts of quality, or “beauty”, and a clear commitment to creating enduring and successful new places for people to live and work. A core theme was requiring new development to make reference to context and the specific qualities of individual locations.

The commission’s work has informed the government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which includes some of its key recommendations, notably the use of design codes.

In July 2021 the government published its initial National Model Design Code which, it says, “sets out clear design parameters to help local authorities and communities decide what good quality design looks like in their area”. Two phases of government-funded pilots have taken place, to assess the challenges that planning authorities will face when rolling them out. 

The code “forms part of the government’s planning practice guidance and expands on the 10 characteristics of good design set out in the national design guide, which reflects the government’s priorities and provides a common overarching framework for design”.

The hope is that design codes will not only help to drive up standards but give power to local communities and introduce more certainty for investors. But will the proposed changes address the concerns of the construction industry and meet the needs of wider society?

We asked what a range of industry figures think of Gove’s design code revolution and the extent to which the idea could help drive positive change.

Here are the views of some key players from across politics, design and planning. We asked them what design codes mean and what challenges they present for the planning system, local government and designers.

The planner

Vicky Payne is strategy, research and engagement lead at the Quality of Life Foundation. She also worked on the National Model Design Code with David Rudlin.

She sees design codes as a potentially useful new tool, but not a simple panacea for all the planning system’s ills. “I think they’re something that have a huge amount of potential within the right conditions,” she says.

To work well, she believes that design codes should be implemented within a context where there is strategic spatial planning and an updated local plan. “With those elements in place, then design codes would be a functioning part of the policy system,” she says.

“In theory they make decision making quicker at the later stages of the planning process.” But Payne questions whether they will actually reduce the pressure on planning departments. “They don’t reduce the workload overall. They just frontload the work.”

She points out that capacity in planning departments is “a massive issue” but believes that, with the right resources, the existing planning system could deliver.

“A lot of the time the planning system is pointed to as the source of all ills,” she says. “I would love to see how the current system functions when resourced properly.

“Let’s make that a priority while we explore how the system itself could be improved.”

The regeneration specialist

Tom Bridgman is executive director for development at Oxford City Council and has worked in the private sector as an associate director for Aecom, before moving to public sector regeneration at Lambeth borough council and then in Oxford.

He sees the potential value in design codes but worries about how local authorities will resource their production and wonders “whether it will be one code or a series of codes” that councils are required to produce. “We will be watching closely,” he adds.

“Design codes are a really effective tool at the site level,” he observes. But he sees the amount of work required to create the codes as being in conflict with their stated role of reducing planners’ workload. “There’s a question about the level of resources needed to develop a set of design codes across the whole city.

“When it comes to placemaking, local government could be so much more central. We have some amazing tools. If the levers are pulled at the right time, we can produce some incredible outcomes. But it often feels like we’re in a boxing match with one hand tied behind our backs.”

A key challenge that Bridgman identifies is in finding and retaining sufficient staff. “We have some fantastic talented members of staff, but need more.” Discussing the diffifculty in appointing some of the more senior planning positions, he says: “It’s a continuous struggle in terms of competing with the private sector on pay.”

The local councillor

Nick Southworth is a Conservative councillor on Buckinghamshire County Council and Chesham Town Council. He chairs the neighbourhood plan committee for Chesham and has been working on a design code for Chesham and the local plan for Buckinghamshire, which is at the call for sites stage.

“Nimbyism has understandably grown because people have seen so much poor development going into their towns,” says Southworth, who sees design codes as representing the “democratisation” of local planning.

He describes how “the 1960s and 70s rolled in and bulldozed a lot of the town”. He wants to “enhance the town for many years to come”.

Chesham Town Council is using design codes to steer development on an old brownfield site. “Design coding is fundamental to the whole project,” he says. “The end product will be something local people can recognise that they have had input into.”

Southworth has been working on the neighbourhood plan since before covid. When the Levelling Up Fund was announced, Chesham put in an application for funding. Since then he has been working hard to develop a design code for the site. “It’s about reflecting what the town wants to see,” he says.

He knows developers have the money and are keen to build, but struggle to navigate the planning system. “We’re de-risking the planning for the developer, but the benefit is [that] we get the development we want – and homes.”

Southwork sees design codes as sitting “between directive planning and laissez-faire”, and believes communities need to embrace the opportunity “if we don’t want the directive approach thrust upon us”.

The neighbourhood development orders will come to a public referendum and the democratic process means the town has the opportunity to throw out all of Southwork’s work. He admits he would be disappointed if the local community voted against the plan, which includes the design code but accepts that the town must have the final say.

In the end the design code has provided around 13 different housing typologies “native to Chesham”. It includes a very detailed palette of materials – including hung tiles and brick.

He admits that for all councillors there’s a “political risk that we upset residents. Development is always emotive, which is why so many councillors are wary of engaging in it”. But the payoff is worth the risk. “What we desperately need is homes for people. If we want the houses to be on brownfield, not green, we need to put this work in.”

He describes the approach to producing the design code as complex. “We started the design coding as a blank canvas and then sought residents views on what they liked and received thousands of responses.” The approach involved allowing local people to nominate any of the buildings in the village they liked.

“People chose buildings predominantly from 1850 to 1930,” he says. “They gravitate towards those traditional styles.”

He describes the approach of most architects, who he sees as dogmatically advocating for modern design, as being akin to “cooking dinner for a vegetarian and serving them steak”. He adds: “Keep building homes people don’t like and you will carry on getting opposition. We have done the market research for developers, you know what the market here wants to buy, why wouldn’t you then want to build it!”

When asked whether this means that contemporary design will still be an option for those who want it, he says he is “not here to enable what people don’t like”. The “town had enough of experimental architecture,” he says.

For Southworth, it is all about meeting the demands of his constituents. And he sees significant broader benefits. “If you build in styles people like, you’ll get away with greater densities. Give the people what they want.”