Removing ‘beauty’ from the NPPF shows that we are bringing objectivity back to planning

First, it’s important to note that the revisions do not entirely remove references to “beauty” and “beautiful”. They make few other changes to this chapter; it continues to refer to the process of applying the National Model Design Code.

Elsewhere in the NPPF, paragraph 20 removes “to ensure outcomes support beauty and placemaking” from the statement that “strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places and make sufficient provision for housing, infrastructure, community facilities and conservation and enhancement of the environment”.

In Chapter 8 (Promoting healthy and safe communities) the words “and beautiful buildings” are removed from the phrase “Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places”.

“It’s important to note that the revisions do not entirely remove references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’”

The following paragraph goes on to say, “Which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion – for example through the use of well-designed, clear and legible pedestrian and cycle routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas” – but removes “beautiful” from this list.

Is this a dumbing down of design, with priorities shifting from quality to quantity of homes, along with a renewed emphasis on social and affordable housing?

Speaking to The Guardian shortly after the NPPF’s changes were published, Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister and housing secretary, said proposed changes will not lead to “a load of ugly houses”. Ms Rayner defended the decision to remove the requirement for new homes to be beautiful, claiming the word was preventing development and was too subjective.

On the point of subjectivity, I agree entirely. Planning is the opposite of subjective, being centred around objectivity and balance. The profession emerged as a set of rules which, through a structured and rational approach, manage the varying, wide-ranging and ever-changing demands of land use.

As professionals facilitating the provision of more housing, and crucially more social and affordable housing, our role balances the social, economic and environmental needs within a clearly defined legislative structure. “Beauty” was always going to be challenging to define and agree as part of a national framework.

“Angela Rayner defended the decision to remove the requirement for new homes to be ‘beautiful’, claiming the word was preventing development and was too subjective”

It follows, therefore, that successful planning depends on a strong and consistent legislative framework, the centre of which is the NPPF; it fails when that framework is weakened. And when this occurs, the supply of housing risks being reduced.

Before the election, Ms Rayner said only “attractive homes” would be allowed in the party’s building blitz, as she set out a series of indicative designs (modern versions of Victorian terraces and suburban homes) aimed at reducing local opposition to development. She promised an end to “identikit homes” and said the 1.5 million homes Labour plans to build would include “only exemplary design with real character”.

However, it is interesting to note that the government’s ‘golden rules’ for released green belt (or ‘grey belt’) land don’t reference design. The first of these is that “at least” 50% of housing provided by the scheme should be affordable, with an “appropriate” proportion for social rent (subject to viability).

Second, schemes should deliver “necessary improvements” to local or national infrastructure, and new or improved green spaces accessible to the public. For residential developments, new residents should be able to access good-quality green spaces within a “short walk of their home”, whether on site or through access to off-site spaces. No reference is made to the design of the built environment. And yet presumably it is in the green belt that design is most sensitive.

Balancing priorities is something that we, as planning consultants, grapple with in our everyday work.

In the past few years, many of us have been disappointed in the way that seemingly irrational decisions undermine our profession and our output. The fact that professional advice and opinions based on quantifiable evidence is ignored makes a mockery of the objective and evidence-based principles that govern planning and provides the necessary new homes.

With a new government, and a new NPPF, we hope that objectivity can be restored to planning decisions and that, ultimately, more housing can be delivered as a result.

Katy Davis, planning and development partner, Carter Jonas