Proposals to analyse psychological impact as part of the planning system have sparked debate over the effects of introducing mandatory processes for placemaking.
A new “placemaking matrix”, proposed by conservative think tank Policy Exchange and backed by Michael Gove, posits that the existing model does not focus enough on placemaking. It aims to become a deciding factor in the UK’s planning system by assigning Ofsted-style ratings to proposed developments.
By doing so, it seeks to ensure all future schemes “emulate the high-quality, mixed-use placemaking” of Birmingham’s Brindleyplace.
Gove hailed the system’s promise as “an indispensable resource”. “It can help build confidence in the wider social value of new residential schemes during the planning process and so unlock much-needed new housing supply,” he said.
Questions address the physical, socioeconomic and psychological impacts of developments, with answers scored out of 100%. Issues include the extent to which cognitive or behavioural stimuli have been incorporated into public space designs, and whether roofs host terraces or planting.
Complexity of scoring systems
Industry leaders have noted that the report underlines the challenges in using a scoring system as a comparative tool.
Ian Fletcher, policy director at the British Property Federation, said similar tools already exist, such as the Scottish government’s Place Standard, and that many developers use their own internal scorecards. He said if used voluntarily, “such scorecards and matrixes can help to promote good placemaking and get communities and developers thinking about the elements of placemaking and their priorities”.
However, Fletcher noted Policy Exchange’s three examples using London’s Nine Elms scheme, the Accordia project in Cambridge and Lochgelly regeneration in Fife (see below) did not compare just apples and pears, he said, but “apples, pears and plums”.
“A former mining village, a former country garden and a former power station will have very different endowments and very different development challenges,” Fletcher said.
Notably, report author Ike Ijeh said the proposed model would add an “inevitable additional layer of time and bureaucracy”, and would not replace design codes but “act as a supplement to them”.
Local authorities would have to find another staff member to act as an assessor for each project, alongside the planning officer, to ensure impartiality. Two further assessors would then be appointed to score the plans.
Balancing aesthetics with delivery
As such, some critics said the last thing the planning system needs is more well-intentioned tinkering, and that more focus should be placed on delivery rather than aesthetics.
Knight Frank town planning partner Roland Brass said: “While measures to improve the quality of new schemes are important, they will not speed up delivery of new homes.”
He added: “Uncertainty over proposed reforms to the planning system is causing considerable disruption, including to the willingness of some local authorities to progress their local plans.”
Brass cited research from the Home Builders Federation showing 56 LPAs have so far delayed or withdrawn their local plans.
That is holding up development and, along with the ditching of the national target, slowed down the number of allocated sites coming forward. “There is clearly not enough supply coming through the system, and this has a wider impact on growth over the next few years,” Brass said.
Findings from Knight Frank show the number of major residential planning decisions granted across England fell to a 12-year low in 2022, with Q1 2023 looking even slower. In London, decisions granted have fallen to an all-time low.
Nine Elms falls short
Report author Ike Ijeh used the system to retrospectively assess three existing schemes: London’s £9bn Nine Elms redevelopment, the 2008 Stirling Prize winning Accordia project in Cambridge and the regeneration of “Scotland’s most dismal town”, Lochgelly, in Fife.
Accordia received an “Outstanding” score of 71.3%, while Lochgelly was rated “Good” at 66.3%.
But with a score of nearly 46.2%, Nine Elms would have been rated as “Poor”. If the system were in place at the time, the planning committee would have been advised to turn it down.
The location performed worst in the “sense of place” subcategory, scoring 2% out of a possible 13.3% of the weighting for psychological impact. Developer R&F and Wandsworth Council did not respond to requests for comment.
Ijeh told EG it was “arguably the most important subsection of the entire matrix”.
To send feedback, e-mail piers.wehner@eg.co.uk or tweet @PiersWehner or @EGPropertyNews
