This site uses cookies, as explained in our cookie policy. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Privacy Policy

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

EORs – what they mean for planning and development

EORs – what they mean for planning and development

Rosie Williams 19 May 2026
Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs) are one of the most significant reforms to environmental assessment in recent years. Introduced through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act (LURA), EORs are intended to replace the existing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) regimes, which have shaped planning decisions since 1988.
The government’s aim is to create a more streamlined, outcomes-focused system that better aligns environmental assessment with national priorities. For planners, developers and environmental practitioners, this transition presents both opportunity and uncertainty. A well‑designed EOR framework could support more consistent decision‑making, strengthen the link between planning and wider environmental ambitions and help demonstrate the environmental benefits of developments more clearly. However, the success of the reform will depend on the effectiveness of implementation, its integration with existing environmental requirements and the sector’s ability to navigate the change confidently.

What are EORs?

EORs are the government’s proposed replacement for the long-standing EIA and SEA regimes. EORs will apply in England only, with no indication to date that equivalent systems are being developed in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
We understand that EORs will be structured around nationally defined environmental ‘outcomes’, covering technical topics including biodiversity; air quality; landscape and seascape; geodiversity, soil and sediment; noise and vibration; water; waste and cultural heritage and archaeology. This represents a shift from identifying and mitigating impacts towards a more strategic, measurable and performance‑based approach focused on outcomes.
The previous government launched a consultation on EORs in 2023, following ascent of the LURA; and a consultation response[1] and roadmap for reform[2] were published in March this year by the current government. The consultation response confirmed the intention to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation to introduce the new system. While this provides reassurance that the reform is moving forward, it offered relatively limited detail on what EORs will look like in practice.

Why are EORs important?

Although only a small proportion of planning applications require EIA, these represent the largest, most complex and strategically significant schemes. Uncertainty over how they will be assessed going forward could have implications for the delivery of housing, infrastructure and regeneration projects. The SEA regime also plays a key role in shaping local plans, meaning changes to the system could have wider impacts on local plan preparation and delivery. Against this backdrop, developers, consultants and local planning authorities (LPAs) will need clear, workable guidance and a well-managed transition to maintain confidence and support effective decision-making.
In response to these issues, we set out below five key factors that we believe are crucial to the success of EORs. These focus on what is needed to embed EORs within the planning system and ensure they work effectively in practice.
1. Clearer integration with environmental regimes
The government’s roadmap emphasises the need for the new EOR system to align with national environmental priorities. As EORs develop, there is a real opportunity to improve coordination with existing regimes, including Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs), Habitats Regulations Directive (HRs) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The sector needs confidence that EOR outcomes will complement, rather than conflict with, other statutory requirements, helping to reduce duplication and create a more joined-up system. Clearer guidance on how these regimes will interact will be important.
2. A well‑managed transition to build confidence
Confidence in the new regime will depend not only on the substance of the reforms, but also on how they are introduced. Given the maturity of the existing EIA and SEA systems, the sector will need reassurance that the transition to EORs is carefully managed, with sufficient time to adapt and reduce the risk of legal uncertainty during the change. The government has indicated that the new regime will be brought forward by the end of 2027. However, many respondents to the consultation called for a transition period of at least two years, supported by pilots and pathfinders. This would help provide certainty for live applications and ensure that development pipelines are not disrupted during implementation. Early testing with live projects, alongside phased and iterative guidance, will therefore be crucial. Ongoing consultation will also play an important role in supporting implementation and maintaining confidence in decision-making.
For SEAs, the changes to this regime will be particularly significant for plan-making authorities, where timing and legal robustness are critical to avoiding delays in plan adoption and ensuring continued delivery of development strategies. Clear alignment between EORs and plan-making processes will therefore be essential.
3. Measurable outcomes that drive environmental performance
A key test for the new EOR regime will be whether it delivers environmental outcomes that are both clear and measurable. This will require quantifiable standards to support analysis and provide a clear timetable for reviewing outcomes. If implemented effectively, EORs should allow more consistent comparisons between projects and provide a stronger basis for monitoring environmental performance and linking outcomes to tangible improvements. A shift to a more digital approach also has the potential to improve the accessibility, consistency and usability of environmental information across the planning process.
At the same time, the scope and robustness of assessment will remain central to maintaining confidence in the new system; will the robustness of analysing climate change and human health be diluted if incorporated into broader technical assessments? While greater integration may help streamline processes, there will need to be clear assurance that these topics continue to be assessed rigorously and transparently. Overall, the new system must ensure that the new regime maintains environmental protections equivalent to those delivered through the current EIA system.
4. Clarity on how EORs work alongside devolved systems
Clarity on how EORs will operate alongside devolved planning and environmental regimes will also be important. For developers, consultants and LPAs working across different jurisdictions, there will need to be confidence that expectations remain broadly consistent between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, particularly for cross-border projects. Clear guidance on how the different systems will interact, together with a longer-term pathway for alignment where appropriate, would help reduce uncertainty and support more effective development delivery across the UK.
5. Prioritising assessor competency
The transition from EIAs and SEAs to EORs will require developers, consultants and LPAs to adjust established processes, upskill teams and become familiar with new expectations. Ensuring consistency and quality throughout this change will depend on a clear and retained competency framework, underpinned by practitioners with appropriate technical expertise. Alongside this, sustained investment in sector-wide training and resourcing will be important to support effective implementation and maintain confidence in assessment standards.

Conclusion

 

EORs have the potential to support more consistent decision-making, strengthen the link between planning and wider environmental ambitions, and help demonstrate the environmental benefits of development more clearly.
However, the success of the reform will depend on the effectiveness of implementation, its integration with existing environmental requirements, and the sector’s ability to navigate the change confidently. The sector is ready to engage with reform, but success will hinge on providing the right guidance and transitional support to ensure the new system can be implemented effectively, supports timely delivery of development and contributes to wider government priorities alongside improved environmental outcomes.

CONTINUE READING

From congestion to growth: Strategic road investment still matters

From congestion to growth: Strategic road investment still matters

Richard Coburn & Sakhi Sumaria 18 May 2026
In parallel with the recent publication of the Road Investment Strategy 3 (2026-2031)[1], National Highways have taken a strongly progressive step in announcing the Growth and Housing Accelerator (GHA) Fund[2]. The new fund is similar to its predecessor (known as the Growth and Housing Fund – dormant for 5 years) and emphasises National Highways position to support road schemes that genuinely unlock and accelerate delivery of strategic housing and employment developments.
This builds on Lichfields recent advice to National Highways and the Government which highlighted essential alterations to the company’s remit and statutory consultee role so that it can be more strongly empowered to act as an enabler of economic and housing growth.
Whilst I will not repeat my opinions expressed in previous blogs and Insights, the Fund does not resemble a change to National Highways Licence and remit, but it demonstrates a clear growth intention and is a step in the right direction.
Further reading from Lichfields
Steering the statutory consultee system to support economic growth – the role of National Highways
The Road Ahead: The role of National Highways in economic growth and housing delivery
Importantly, the Fund is restricted to development schemes that have already secured planning consent but are subject to conditions requiring specific transport interventions to be delivered before soil can be broken.  This approach to public sector funding is both pragmatic and indeed refreshing as it prioritises more mature schemes and helps to ensure timely delivery.
In my opinion, as previously expressed, too much growth and regeneration funding has been underutilised with development delayed because of poorly defined funding criteria, unrealistic application timescales, and a lack of transparency in both scoring and approval processes. In particular, previous Government requirements for schemes to be “shovel ready” were often loosely framed and inconsistently applied, placing unrealistic expectations on local authorities. This approach inevitably contributed to delays in delivering growth. With the Levelling Up Fund being a prime example, the problem was that shovel-ready was not properly defined or indeed adhered to by appraisers of applications which led to much waste and delay with little growth to show for the efforts of local authorities.   By contrast,  the GHA provides a clearer and more explicit definition of what constitutes deliverability, offering a more structured and pragmatic framework for funding decisions.
Further reading from Lichfields
The Funding Dilemma - Cracking the Business Case code
Without repeating the healthy headlines of National Highways impact on growth through the previous Growth and Housing Fund, the new GHA Fund is a no-brainer in terms of picking ripe, low-hanging fruit to deliver growth. My only gripe is that the fund could have been much more substantial than the £165 million earmarked for 2026-2030. However, the announcement of the Fund paves the way for future funding rounds The accompanying Prospectus sets a positive foundation, aligning with best practice principles we have previously recommended for the design of public funding programmes. In particular, the GHA Fund takes several constructive steps to support successful delivery from the outset:
  1. Clear funding criteria – The Fund establishes well-defined criteria against which Expressions of Interest will be assessed, providing applicants with direction, managing expectations, and ensuring a more transparent and level playing field for assurance.

  2. Visibility of the funding process – It sets out a comprehensive view of the end-to-end process for securing funding, enabling applicants to understand key gateways and the evidence required at each stage.

  3. Structured approach to business case development – National Highways has indicated that funding applications will be developed internally, while clearly articulating where applicant input and resources will be required. This ensures that expectations are set early and that appropriate capabilities are in place to support high-quality submissions.

  4. Encouragement of early collaboration – While only local and mayoral authorities are eligible to submit applications, the Fund actively encourages early engagement with developers. This helps to ensure that the right schemes are put forward and that key stakeholders are aligned from the outset, improving efficiency throughout the application process.
To illustrate the potential power of the GHA Fund, it is helpful to provide an example. The planned Chelmsford Garden Community in Essex has the capacity in total to deliver around 10,000 new homes, 45,000 sq.m employment space and substantial social amenity and infrastructure. Divided into three core zones, the scheme was stalled by the Government in its July 2025 Spending Review by cancelling the previously approved Development Consent Order (DCO) for the A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening scheme which formed a critical condition to implementation of the permission. The DCO would have included improvements to Junction 19 of the A12 which were fundamental to unlocking a significant proportion of the planned housing and employment development with the viability and delivery strategies dependent on the DCO commitments. 
In light of the cancelled DCO, the developer consortium in partnership with Chelmsford City Council, Essex County Council, National Highways and Homes England worked together to define an alternative set of interim improvements to Junction 19 which would enable the unlocking and accelerated delivery of approximately 6,250 new homes. However, given that the development’s viability was partly underpinned by the approved DCO, the cost of implementing the interim road improvements would undermine the deliverability of these additional homes. Whilst a solid proportion of these costs could be met through funding committed by Homes England, a significant funding gap remains. Potentially addressing this funding gap through the National Highways GHA Fund represents a clear opportunity offering excellent value for money to unlock a substantial number of new homes and other benefits.
Junction 19 improvements to release a chunk of the Chelmsford Garden Community is just one example of a genuinely shovel ready growth project.  Without doubt, there will be many similar development projects held back by unfunded but well-planned transport schemes which could eat up the £165 million in a period much shorter than the five years to 2030.  It will be refreshing and positive for National Highways to demonstrate its role and commitment to directly enabling housing and economic growth.

 

Details of the GHA including the Funding Prospectus can be found here:

Growth and Housing Accelerator Fund - National Highways
Growth and Housing Accelerator Fund prospectus - National Highways
Expressions of interest close on Friday 19th June 2026.  Whilst applications must be led by local authorities and Mayoral Strategic Authorities, early engagement and partnership working with developers is highly recommended.
For a free consultancy session of application advice, please contact Richard Coburn.

 

Footnotes

 

CONTINUE READING

Pubs Under Pressure: Planning’s Role in the Pub Sector

Pubs Under Pressure: Planning’s Role in the Pub Sector

Lara Baughan 14 May 2026
Last year, on average, one pub closed every day[1]. This year, the Times[2] has suggested up to 3 licensed premises could be closing per day, with the UK hospitality market in severe crisis, driven by soaring energy costs, high wage inflation, and reduced consumer spending with thousands of venues at risk and operators citing mounting unsustainable debt. Behind this headline figure lies a deeper structural shift, with changing consumer habits[3], rising operating costs[4] and growing viability pressures[5] reshaping the pub market.
However, while much of the debate focuses on taxation, business rates and energy costs, planning policy also plays a significant, and sometimes overlooked, role. As the market evolves, a question emerges of whether planning policy remains wholly aligned with today’s shifting trends and economic reality, or whether policy is operating on assumptions that no longer hold true?
This blog considers the national picture before focusing on London’s policy framework and reflecting on how policy can both protect those most valued pubs and enable adaptation in a changing market.

The National Picture

During 2024 and 2025, hundreds of pubs were demolished or converted to alternative uses, contributing to almost 2,000 net losses over the past five years[6]. While closures are not a new phenomenon, the pace and persistence of decline reflect deeper structural challenges rather than a temporary market correction.
Operators are contending with a convergence of cost pressures which are significantly affecting viability. Sharp uplifts in rateable values have pushed up business rates, while rises in the National Living Wage have added to staffing costs in an often labour‑intensive and competitive sector. At the same time, energy prices and supply chain costs remain elevated, and alcohol duty increases continue to erode margins[7]. These pressures coincide with reduced consumer spending, as households absorb higher mortgage repayments and rental costs, limiting the frequency and scale of expenditure alongside structural and generational shifts in drinking and greater interest in health and fitness.
Although recent government announcements on business rate relief[8] may provide some short-term support, they do little to alter the structural economics facing many operators. In certain locations, particularly high-value urban areas, the residual land value of alternative uses can significantly exceed the use value of a pub, intensifying pressure for redevelopment. As this viability gap widens, the role of planning policy becomes more pronounced: should it act as a firm brake on change, or adapt to ensure that protection is both proportionate and sustainable?

London: A Changing Market

This tension is particularly pronounced in London.
Historically, London’s pub culture has been closely linked to office-based working patterns and a strong after-work social scene. However, hybrid working has reduced weekday footfall[9], while broader cultural shifts, including reduced alcohol consumption among younger demographics[10], are reshaping demand.
In areas where multiple pubs once thrived on consistent weekday trade, operators now compete for a smaller and more volatile customer base. The result is increased fragility, particularly for pubs without a distinctive offer, strong heritage identity or clear community function.

The London Plan: Protection as the Default

Against this backdrop, the London Plan adopts a strongly protective stance. This stance is often mirrored elsewhere as the default for pub protection.
The London Plan Policy HC7, Protecting Public Houses, requires boroughs to protect pubs where they have heritage, cultural, economic or social value.
“A In Development Plan Documents, town centre strategies, and planning decisions, boroughs should:

1) protect public houses where they have a heritage, economic, social or cultural value to local communities, or where they contribute to wider policy objectives for town centres, night-time economy areas, Cultural Quarters and Creative Enterprise Zones

2) support proposals for new public houses where they would stimulate town centres, Cultural Quarters, the night-time economy and mixed-use development, taking into account potential negative impacts.

B Applications that propose the loss of public houses with heritage, cultural, economic or social value should be refused unless there is authoritative marketing evidence that demonstrates that there is no realistic prospect of the building being used as a pub in the foreseeable future.

C Development proposals for redevelopment of associated accommodation, facilities or development within the curtilage of the public house that would compromise the operation or viability of the public house use should be resisted.”
The intention is clear and widely supported; pubs can act as important community anchors, contribute to the night-time economy and often hold heritage value. However, in practice, the breadth of the policy  and notably its application presents challenges.
The criteria (heritage, cultural, economic or social value) are wide-ranging and often difficult to disapply. It can be argued that almost all pubs contribute in some way socially or economically. This, in combination with often some local objection (we all have our favourite pub!) means protection is often the default position irrespective of viability context or market change. The placing of pubs within a ‘sui generis’ class means it can often be difficult to convert, even to other town centre / hospitality uses.
This creates a key question particularly for the emerging London Plan, but also for other Plans: should all pubs be protected equally, or should policy distinguish more clearly between those of strategic or exceptional value to preserve the best, but not to protect the all?
A blanket approach risks dispersing investment thinly across struggling assets, rather than focusing protection where it delivers the greatest public benefit.

A Practical Example: Reconfiguration Over Retention

Recent experience demonstrates that a more nuanced approach can be possible and can add to vitality and viability in town centres.
Lichfields supported an application at 10 New Bridge Street in the City of London, involving the reconfiguration of an existing public house. The proposals included a reduction in overall pub floorspace, with the removal of upper floor areas that functioned largely as circulation and ancillary space.
While this technically conflicted with Policy HC7 due to the net loss of pub floorspace, the scheme materially improved the quality and functionality of the retained space. The reconfigured layout delivered a more efficient, commercially viable and operationally coherent ‘pub’ offer, but with significantly enhanced food capability, transforming an almost exclusively wet trade to an all-day coffee / food hub based destination.
This was not without objection, but at the decision making stage, the City of London recognised that the proposals enhanced the long-term sustainability of the use, and provided a destination which would enhance place and provide a destination, despite the numerical reduction in floorspace.
The case illustrates an important principle, whereby viability and functional optimisation can, in some circumstances, better secure a future than rigid adherence to quantitative floorspace retention.

 

Image credit: PixelFlakes

 

Towards a More Targeted Policy Framework

With the next London Plan expected to be adopted in 2027[11], there could be opportunity to refine the policy approach.
This is not an argument against pub protection. Rather, it is a case for more targeted and evidence-based evaluation that reflects the structural shifts affecting the sector and which seeks to preserve the best. A more nuanced framework could distinguish more clearly between pubs of exceptional heritage, architectural or community significance and those whose contribution, while valued, is less strategically critical. In doing so, policy could prioritise safeguarding assets that genuinely function as heritage examples, community and cultural anchors or key components of the night-time economy.
Importantly, policy could also provide more explicit support for evolution, flexibility and reconfiguration proposals that often help safeguard operational sustainability. As demonstrated in practice, retaining nominal floorspace does not necessarily secure a pub’s future if the space is inefficient or poorly configured. Allowing flexibility where proposals demonstrably improve functionality, quality and long-term resilience could better align policy objectives with commercial reality.
Finally, there may be merit in acknowledging hybrid or complementary models that maintain a pub presence while diversifying income streams. In a sector increasingly characterised by adaptation, whether through food-led offers, workspace integration or mixed-use redevelopment, policy that enables carefully managed evolution may ultimately deliver stronger and more durable outcomes than rigid preservation. Ultimately this could be through reform of Permitted Development or, more widely, through the Use Classes Order.
Such refinements would not dilute protection; rather, they would ensure that it is applied where it delivers the greatest public benefit.

Looking Ahead

Pubs remain an important component of our social and economic fabric. However, the market in which they operate has changed over the past decade, with a ‘perfect storm’ of economic challenges and social and structural changes.
As planning policy evolves, there is a need to balance protection with pragmatism. Ensuring long-term resilience may, in some cases, require adaptation rather than strict preservation.
For applicants, operators and decision-makers alike, the key challenge will be navigating this tension, demonstrating when protection remains justified, and when carefully considered change better secures sustainable outcomes.

 

Footnotes

 

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/31/one-pub-a-day-closed-permanently-in-england-and-wales-in-2025

[2] The Times 27 April 2026

[3] https://www.cbre.co.uk/insights/articles/how-are-uk-pubs-adapting-to-modern-drinking-trends

[7] Since Duty Reform in 2023, the Duty on Wine has increased by up to 49% and beer and spirits up to 18%

CONTINUE READING

Achieving Well-designed Places: A Brave New World or Business as Usual?

Achieving Well-designed Places: A Brave New World or Business as Usual?

Sarah Goy 12 May 2026
While the Government considers the responses that were submitted in respect of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2025, and we await publication of the new policy, it is useful to take stock of some of the topics that were subject to less scrutiny during the consultation period. Focusing on design and the delivery of well-designed places, this blog considers the direction that national policy is taking and considers what this may mean going forwards. It forms part of a suite of commentary based on the draft NPPF prepared by Lichfields. 
An initial review concludes that there are few significant changes between the current NPPF Chapter 12[1] and Chapter 14 of the 2025 Consultation Draft[2], with there still being an overarching presumption that poorly designed proposals should be refused.
Alongside the draft NPPF, four previous guidance and coding documents have been consolidated into one document; the Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance (DPPPG)[3] will provide a single point of reference for applicants and decision makers – providing greater clarity in the interpretation of design standards.
But is that all there is to it, or does this deserve more than a very short blog?
 
 
Plan-making and decision-making
While the current NPPF promotes a combined plan-making and decision-making approach, Chapter 14 of the draft NPPF makes a distinction between plan-making (DP1 and DP2) and decision making (DP3 and DP4), an approach that has been applied to the whole policy document.
Paragraph 135 of the current NPPF sets out a series of design tests which are to be addressed in the formation of policy and the determination of planning applications, while the ten characteristics of well-designed Places requires users to cross refer to the accompanying National Design Guide. Within the draft NPPF the seven key principles for well-designed places are clearly set out within the decision-making policies section of (Policy DP3), highlighting that development proposals should respond to both their context and the key principles. This policy effectively provides a list of fundamental features that proposals must address. The seven principles are described more fully in Part 1 of the DPPPG, where they are introduced and described as ‘features’, each with their own sub-principles. Reference is also made to the seven principles within the plan-making policies section concerned with setting out clear design expectations; Policy DP1(c) “Set[s] out locally-specific design policies or standards which are necessary to add further detail to the principles in policy DP3,..”  Therefore, while the draft NPPF introduces national development management policy relating to achieving well-designed places, it also provides a mechanism by which locally specific policies can also be established in local plans.
It remains to be seen to what level the seven principles are used within the decision-making process, how effective the approach of including these in national policy is in delivering well-designed places and whether the inclusion of additional site-specific policy will result in either repetition or, indeed, conflict. Lichfields will continue to monitor this to provide future insight.
 
  
Design objectives, characteristics and principles
A quarter of a century has passed since By Design, Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice[4] was published by the (then) Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions and the (former) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. The aim of the guidance was to “promote higher standards in urban design”. It was the first major national design guidance of its kind in England and was based upon seven objectives supported by a series of considerations related to aspects of development form. These objectives were set out as a series of aims to promote better urban design. Two decades later the National Design Guide’s ten characteristics provided a series of features to “nurture and sustain a sense of community…. and address environmental issues..” In the most recent draft the seven principles effectively provide a series of rules to achieve well-designed places.  Collectively, this reflects a shift from initial design ambitions to a defined set of criteria that set out what is expected. Further comparisons between the NDG and the DPPPG are made within Charlotte Walker’s blog.
While there is still a degree of cross referencing to DPPPG to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the principles, as there is currently with the NDG, the key shift in the latest iteration is that the principles of achieving well-designed places will be set out clearly within national policy – listed within DP3 and referenced directly within DP1, providing greater emphasis on achieving good design quality.
However, as illustrated in Figure 1 below, the seven key principles represent an effective distillation of the ten characteristics as set out in the National Design Guide. Within DPPPG each ‘feature’ (principle) has an introductory paragraph related to context, highlighting the importance now given to context as an overarching thread. As with the current NPPF and associated guidance, both the draft NPPF and the DPPPG seek to ensure that proposals are sympathetic to local history, features and character while not precluding appropriate innovation and changes. But the main addition is the inclusion of the principle of ‘Climate’ and, in particular, the references to how proposals should “contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption and the transition to net zero...” In the context of the other amendments that do not really move the dial in terms of the focus on design, this is important in showing how design can be used to contribute to the delivery of the Government’s climate change and decarbonisation aspirations.

 


Figure 1: Features of Well-designed Places

 
 
Design coding
Both the current and draft NPPF highlight the necessity of design guides and codes to deliver successful, well-designed places. However, the draft version focusses upon where the use of such guidance would be most appropriate, highlighting “significant site allocations and areas of change”. It no longer specifically references “area-wide” codes or the potential role of Neighbourhood planning groups in “identifying the special qualities of each area”. The change in focus between ‘area-wide codes’ and ‘areas of change’ is more significant than it might initially appear. It indicates a move away from broader geographic areas to more targeted sites, and the associated potential to tighten-up guidance. It remains to be seen whether the local authorities, such as Buckinghamshire Council and Dover District Council, that have started to prepare area-wide codes will continue to do so, or whether they might shift their focus to align with national policy in coding for specific allocations within their area.
 
 
Design review
The emphasis placed on the design review process as a means of ensuring design quality has increased between the existing and draft versions. Currently “LPAs should have regard….to recommendations made by Design Review panels”. Within the 2025 draft, Policy DP1 requires development plans to set out the circumstances in which design review will be required, and Policy DP4 requires that “LPAs should ensure that they have access to and encourage the appropriate use of design review…and take into account their outcomes…”. The requirement for monitoring and review processes, to enable adjustment if required, has also been included, resulting in an approach which more strongly embeds the Design Review process within the policy framework.
 
 
Summary
It is apparent that the key principles within national design guidance have not changed much over the last quarter of a century (and even beyond that). The fundamental objectives, characteristics or principles have broadly remained the same, albeit with some rewording and restructuring, and the critical inclusion of climate most recently. It is the Government’s aspiration for the inclusion of the seven urban design principles within national policy for the first time that provides the opportunity to ensure the delivery of well-designed places, as greater weight can now be afforded under proposed Policy DP3 to the fundamental features of well-designed places. In addition, increased emphasis will be placed on design coding (but for site allocations and masterplans, rather than authority-wide areas), and on the design review process.
It remains to be seen how these changes will affect the plan-making and decision-making processes in practice, and whether these proposed changes become an obstacle to the desired streamlining of the planning system to deliver much needed homes at pace.  Ultimately a degree of subjectivity remains, with the potential for variation resulting from the discretion of decision makers. Lichfields will continue to monitor how the new national policy is being implemented in design terms and will provide further insight on this in the future.
Lichfields’ urban design team can assist our clients to address the proposed changes within the draft by:
  1. Ensuring that the seven design principles are addressed through the design stage, informed by a thorough understanding of the site and its context, to create well-designed places.
  2. Articulate how the design principles are to be met through the preparation of design and access statements.
  3. Supporting clients through the Design Review process to reach high quality, viable design solutions.
  4. Preparing design guides, design codes and masterplans that are proportionate to the scale of change and are based upon a thorough appraisal of the local character with a clear understanding of the economic, social and environmental context.
To discuss your urban design requirements please contact Sarah Goy or George Williams. 

 

Footnotes
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system [3] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/design-and-placemaking-planning-practice-guidance/design-and-placemaking-planning-practice-guidance
[4] https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/fileadmin/uploads/dc/Documents/by-design_0.pdf

CONTINUE READING

Load More

Subscribe

Receive our latest thinking direct to your inbox.

I want to receive…