Making places beautiful – draft revised NPPF and National Model Design Code

On 30 January 2021, MHCLG published for consultation revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the new National Model Design Code. The consultation closes on 27 March 2021. The proposed revisions to the NPPF in part respond to the final report of the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’s (BBBBC), Living with Beauty, the government’s response to which was published on the same day. In that response, the government said that it proposed to implement the vast majority of the BBBBC’s proposals, many of which have already been reflected in the Planning White Paper. However, one recommendation of the BBBBC that has not been accepted by the government is that Article 4 Directions should be used to protect high streets; not only has this specific proposal been rejected, but the general ability of local planning authorities to use Article 4 Directions to control the use of permitted development (PD) rights in their area will be heavily curtailed if the proposed revisions to the NPPF are adopted in full.

Government’s response to Living with Beauty

The government’s long awaited response to the BBBBC’s final report identifies the most significant measures that the government intends to take forward. These include:

• Revisions to the NPPF, including revisions that:
  • “positively [support] design quality as a key issue in consenting schemes”;
  • “make it clearer that poor quality schemes should be refused”; and
  • “where appropriate [extend] references to ‘good design’ to ‘good design and beautiful places’.
• The new National Model Design Code (NMDC), which builds on the National Design Guide published in October 2019 and is intended to inform local design guides and codes or, in the absence of local guidance, act in their stead. Over the next year, the NMDC will be piloted by 20 communities and a new “expert design body” will be set up, overseen by an interim “Office for Place” chaired by Nicholas Boys Smith.
• Street trees, which are “a core part of [the government’s] vision for enhancing the quality of urban development”. The proposed revisions to the NPPF require new streets to be tree-lined and the NMDC provides guidance on incorporating trees into new development.

The BBBBC also highlighted the importance of Homes England and of the long-term “stewardship” of land in creating beautiful and durable places. The government is taking forward proposals to strengthen Homes England’s role in design quality. However, before committing to proposals for a “stewardship model [to] be embedded in housing delivery”, the government says that the overall cost, benefit and means of implementation of such a model need to be fully explored.

“Beautiful” v “ugly” – the role of the new National Model Design Code

The proposed revisions to the NPPF have introduced the concept of “beautiful” places into national planning policy. However, the revised NPPF does not define exactly what is meant by the term “beautiful” for policy purposes. Given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, could the lack of a definition be problematic?

The government’s response to Living with Beauty repeats the BBBBC’s assertion that:

“Beauty includes everything that promotes a healthy and happy life, everything that makes a collection of buildings into a place, everything that turns anywhere into somewhere, and nowhere into home. It is not merely a visual characteristic, but is revealed in the deep harmony between a place and those who settle there.”

This is subjective still. Perhaps what is “beautiful” can more clearly be defined by what is not? The government’s response also refers to the BBBBC's definition of “ugly”:

“Ugliness means buildings that are unadaptable, unhealthy and unsightly and which violate the context in which they are placed.”

This is more objective and thus helpful. However, in the absence of an express definition in the NPPF of what is “beautiful” for policy purposes, local planning authorities and developers will need to rely on the new NMDC to help them assess whether or not a proposed development is policy compliant.

The government expects to publish the final version of the NMDC in the spring. To avoid uncertainty, and potentially lengthy debate, at the planning application stage, developers should take a look at the draft now to see whether they are happy that it gives them sufficiently clear guidance as to what forms of development will qualify as “beautiful”.

The obvious shift from a policy focus on "good design" to "beauty" also marks a shift from objective to subjective standards for new architecture and places. In the absence of clear guidance, there is undoubtedly a risk that "beautiful" could be interpreted by some local authorities to mean "traditional", "conservative" or even "pastiche". Securing planning permission for contemporary, innovative or progressive designs may well become more difficult as a result.

Curtailing the use of Article 4 Directions – strengthening the role of permitted development

Policy Proposition 25 of Living with Beauty made several interesting recommendations on encouraging resilient high streets, including:

“Given the systemic under-supply of homes in some parts of the country, there is a danger that an unregulated implementation of the current policy [to permit shrinkage of A1 space where appropriate] will see all shops converted to homes. This might be very hard to manage, with consequences for ground floor design and location of bin stores. This can lead to ‘disastrous impact on the beauty and character of local high streets and contribute further to their decline.’

To prevent this, we recommend the protection through … Article 4 Directions of the ‘core’ of high streets and the very strict use of design codes through which change is facilitated.”

Not only has the government chosen to ignore this recommendation, but they have gone further by creating a new paragraph 53 in the NPPF limiting the use of Article 4 Directions more widely than previously:

• Where Article 4 Directions do not relate to change of use to residential, the existing drafting in the NPPF will continue to apply (namely that Article 4 Directions can only be used where “necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area”).
• However:
  • where Article 4 Directions relate to change of use to residential, two alternatives are proposed. Either:
    • they must only be used where it is “essential to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts”; or
    • they must be limited to situations where use is necessary “to protect an interest of national significance”; and
  • in every case (residential and non-residential), Article 4 Directions may in future only apply to the “smallest geographical area possible”.

Article 4 Directions are a key weapon in a local planning authority’s armoury, helping them to manage uses in their area where the blanket use of PD rights would otherwise cause harm. The ability for an LPA to use Article 4 Directions is already limited, and there must be a “particularly strong” justification for the withdrawal of PD rights relating to a wide area or where the PD is subject to prior approval. However, Article 4 Directions are widely used to prevent office to residential change of use and, particularly given the recent news of the buy-outs of several major high street brands but not their stores, many LPAs may have been banking on using Article 4 Directions to prevent the potentially widespread use of the proposed new Class E to residential PD right (about which see our blog post of 8 January 2021).

Gaining the necessary confirmation by the Secretary of State of an Article 4 Direction which limits the proposed new residential PD right could just have got a whole lot harder. If the BBBBC is right, the impact of this on town centres could be worse than was previously thought possible. The government created the new Use Class E to boost town centre fortunes, to help them recover and thrive in a post-pandemic world, by enabling premises easily to switch to leisure, culture and community uses which would encourage footfall for remaining retail and serve an important social purpose. By first creating the new residential PD right and then disabling local authorities from ring-fencing valuable alternative town centre uses, the government seems to be shooting itself in the foot.

For further information please contact: