The inquiry into young people and the built environment is our chance to deliver for future generations

On 26^th February, I will be giving evidence at a select committee inquiry, along with Jo McCafferty from Levitt Bernstein, Jonny Anstead from TOWN, Sarah Scannell the deputy director for planning at Birmingham City Council, and Tim Gill an independent researcher.

House of Commons select committees scrutinise the work of government. They gather evidence, from experts in the field, and compile a report that is presented to the secretary of state. Anyone can submit evidence to a select committee, and the committee invites the public to contribute as well. They also carry out surveys or events if necessary and make visits to find out more about the topic.

Once the evidence has been gathered, the committee sets up a small number of panels where MPs hear oral evidence from experts, asking a series of questions in order to draw out a greater understanding on the subject. In the news every day are the findings of recent inquiries (sometimes referred to as a ‘cross party group of MPs’), often calling on the government to make policy, administration, or spending changes. Some make big headlines, such as on phone hacking or the intelligence behind Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The inquiry that I am giving evidence to is looking into the work of the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC), which in its own words is: “Looking at how better planning and building and urban design in England could enhance the health and well-being of children and young people, while also benefitting the population as a whole.

“It will look at how children and young people can use outside public spaces and move around their neighbourhoods: how they can be active and visibly part of their communities – whether it is their street, housing development, estate, town centre, village, public square or park. And it will look at what role the Government may have in making the built environment work in the best way possible.”

The inquiry has received written submissions from over 112 individuals and organisations, including the RIBA and the TCPA, as well as others from across the built environment sector and beyond. It is an issue that affects not just housing and planning, but also health, transport and education. What the inquiry has revealed in its first two sessions in January, is how important it is to get the design of the built environment right for children and how at present we are mostly failing to do so.

What this process has revealed is how important it is for our industry to engage with parliament and that there are mechanisms in place to do so

Why is it significant that professionals from the industry are getting involved? Whilst the inquiry describes ‘outside public spaces’, this of course impacts housing, public buildings and masterplanning. It includes how we lay out developments and conjure up the spaces in between; how homes relate to external spaces; how streets foster neighbourliness; and where and how children play. These issues are all relevant to the inquiry and to how we design as architects.

Our work at ZCD Architects over the last 10 years has been to look at how to design places for and with children and young people. We have published research reports and we are now working on a book, which focuses on housing and how and why we need to think more carefully from the point of view of children. Our research includes hours of observational records, mapping systems, engagement techniques and interviews, which all act as evidence that is useful for the inquiry.

The layout of homes and local neighbourhoods are incredibly important for children. I have written before about how we can create good car free layouts where children and young people can play out and others can socialise, but it is not easy to do. Planning authorities don’t have the evidence and the policy around children’s needs and developers aren’t incentivised to deliver projects that prioritise young people either. Evidence in the inquiry comes from both these groups asking for just that.

So what can central government do? Firstly, they could include children in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as they are currently notable by their absence. This would provide local authorities with a policy ‘hook’ for their own plan making, moving children up their list of priorities. Government could also lead with a vision that looks beyond economic growth and home ownership and paints a picture of how to make healthy, happy, liveable places.

> Also read: Parliamentary inquiry into young people and the built environment starts hearing evidence

Places that work for children, don’t necessarily work for everybody else by default, but in thinking about children’s needs we are able to challenge the domanince of the car (which is the number one reason parents don’t let their children out to play). By including the movement routes of children and thinking about safe routes to school, we can start to prioritise play and places to socialise for older children.

We can also bring in the intergenerational benefits that combat loneliness and think more broadly about how housing needs to be designed to foster communities and even last for generations. These are all things we need for good places.

In our work at ZCD, we have sought to build a strong evidence base. We have looked at how layouts can be approached from a different perspective, by mapping space for social use, rather than vehicular movement. I have recently visited schemes on the continent for my book, to investigate the nuance within the courtyard perimeter block layout to understand better how these schemes perform, looking at deck access, raised podiums, staircases, and footprint areas, amongst other elements.

We have also talked to hundreds of resident children and to adults. We know that good housing layouts and ones where children can play out safely, bring great joy to children’s lives, as well as huge benefits to their parents and indeed other members of the community. There are many many people that benefit from this kind of architecture, so why aren’t we doing it more?

What this inquiry offers is a chance to show how the conception, design, and delivery of housing matters to the architecture industry and that many of us want to influence it for good. The evidence acts as a resource, for current and future architects, planners, and others. This and the findings of the inquiry will be published on the parliamentary website and will be reported to government.

The committee of MPs will make recommendations and DLUHC will have to respond in writing to the recommendations within two months, stating whether they accept them and if so, what they will do.

What this process has revealed is how important it is for our industry to engage with parliament and that there are mechanisms in place to do so. It also shows that there is the will to do better for future generations, a belief which over the last ten years has definitely galvanised and grown.

> Also read: Parliamentary committee to explore relationship between built environment and young people’s health and wellbeing