Planning matters

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

Beyond housing: the economic case for New Towns

Beyond housing: the economic case for New Towns

Dan Evans & Richard Coburn 28 May 2026
The UK Government’s revival of a national New Towns programme represents one of the most ambitious spatial and economic policy shifts in decades. Following the recommendations of the New Towns Taskforce Final Report: Report to Government[1] (published in September 2025), the Government has now shortlisted seven locations[2] for further consultation, marking a shift from strategy to delivery. In addition, a wider pipeline of New Town proposals is already emerging beyond the Taskforce process.
Acknowledged by Chair Sir Michael Lyons in his Foreword to the Report to Government, Lichfields was pleased to support the Taskforce in its preparation of the report including evidence to underpin the strategic and economic case for the programme.
When many people think about New Towns, they think primarily of housing delivery at scale, which is hardly surprising given the prominent role the New Town’s programme has been given in the Government’s response to the housing emergency. But New Towns are also creating jobs, raising productivity and stimulating economic growth – both in the delivery of successful places in their own right, but also their ability to unlock constrained economic potential and addressing deep-rooted spatial inequalities. This framing is reinforced in the Taskforce’s wider report to government, which emphasises that New Towns can make a ‘telling contribution’ to both the pressing need for more homes and to national ambitions for economic growth, especially in locations where housing shortages currently limit the availability of skilled labour and restrict business expansion.
These conclusions highlight a simple reality: if the Government wants New Towns (both the seven shortlisted locations and other New Towns and significant urban extensions that arise outside of the programme) to succeed, they must be built not merely as places to live, but as strategic economic assets integrated into wider labour markets, regional strategies, and national productivity ambitions.
This blog considers the rationale for New Towns as an economic intervention, and the critical factors that must be addressed to ensure they make the fullest contribution to their regions as well as the national economy. This is also in the context of the recent updates to HM Treasury’s Green Book (which we have covered in more detail in a previous blog), which place greater emphasis on the purpose of interventions and the distributional and place-based outcomes they are intended to achieve, rather than relying solely on headline value-for-money metrics. In this context, New Towns should be understood not simply as housing delivery mechanisms, but as targeted, place-based interventions to address specific economic constraints.

 

The economic rationale for New Towns

 

The Taskforce identified the economic consequences of ongoing housing shortages as one of the central justifications for a New Towns programme. In many fast-growing urban areas, demand for labour significantly outstrips the available supply of housing, driving up prices and reducing access to the workforce that firms need to grow. These shortages dampen productivity growth, and reduce the competitiveness of city-region economies that form the backbone of the national economy.
Where housing is scarce and expensive, labour mobility is constrained. People cannot move into areas with abundant job opportunities, and firms cannot expand or diversify because they cannot attract essential workers. Many of England’s most productive cities and regions – including Greater London, the Oxford–Cambridge Arc, Greater Manchester, Bristol, and Leeds – face spatial constraints to various degrees, caused by a combination of limited developable land, high land values, bottlenecks in infrastructure capacity, and insufficient housing supply.
The Taskforce report identifies how such constraints limit the ability of these city regions to generate growth. New Towns, when strategically located within the functional economic area of a strong city, can expand the labour catchment, relieve land pressures, and provide space for new commercial activity, innovation, technology  and industrial clusters. It concluded that New Towns are likely to be most effective when they directly support labour movement into economically successful areas, rather than artificially trying to create demand in uncompetitive places.
The Taskforce’s site selection criteria were explicitly economic: they prioritised two essential criteria, of which one was the supporting or unlocking of economic growth. The recommended locations were also selected to:
 
  1. ‘Relieve growth constraints in ‘overheating’ areas – where there is already high productivity, but housing shortages are restricting labour mobility and therefore preventing the UK from capitalising on existing areas of economic strength;

  2. Attract investment and talent to places which are already growing, but not yet overheating (for example, places with high potential industrial clusters, or high existing trend growth in employment and/or productivity), creating virtuous cycles of growth;

  3. Support agglomeration in England’s major cities, when combined with strategic transport investment – helping to create bigger, more fluid labour markets which are more productive, narrowing the gap between the UK’s major cities and their international counterparts.’
 
This approach should help ensure that productivity benefits are built into the programme from the outset. A Centre for Cities blog[3] from the time that the Taskforce’s recommendations were published highlighted that the selected locations all sit within easy travelling distance of major conurbations, which is critical for ensuring that New Towns amplify existing economic strengths rather than try to invent new ones from scratch.
Of course, there is an argument that New Towns could be used to drive investment in underperforming areas, acting as catalysts for growth in weaker regional economies by attracting new residents, employers, and infrastructure investment. However, this isn’t an approach the Taskforce embraced, with their conclusion that, for areas that are not currently fast‑growing or with untapped potential from increased densification, New Towns are unlikely to be answer. This stance also appears to have been doubled down on by the Government, with many of the seven shortlisted locations being subject to further consultation being major extensions to existing high-performing cities. This could be seen as slightly at odds with the rationale of the updated Green Book which does allow for place-based effects to be given more prominence in decision-making, although in reality other interventions are likely to be more successful in lower performing regions.

 

Getting the strategy right

 

The role of economic vision in New Town development

 

Place-based economic development is most effective when built on a long-term vision around local strengths, sectoral opportunities, and the role of anchor institutions. The Taskforce’s ‘Placemaking Principles’ dedicate an entire section to Business Creation and Employment Opportunities, recommending that New Towns ‘must be places that provide jobs for residents and enable businesses to grow, supporting the government’s economic growth mission’. Beyond this, it identifies that a thriving business community is part of the wider social infrastructure that residents will need to meet their day-to-day needs.

Major employers: Learning from the past

The Taskforce highlights the opportunity to use New Towns to complement existing economic clusters and establishing new hubs, with potential to focus on particular industries.
The UK has a history of ‘company towns’ (including Bournville, Port Sunlight and Saltaire), and some of the post-war New Towns included major employers or specific sectors anchoring early growth. For example:
  • Ford Motors in Basildon
  • Steel in Corby
  • Electronics manufacturing in Glenrothes
Major employers bring the benefit of providing an additional reason for existence, as well as providing jobs close to the new residents. The risk, however, is that as economies change and businesses come and go, it can leave local economies at risk of stress. Company towns are a thing of the past, and the next wave of New Towns need more diversified strategies: a combination of anchor employers, sector clusters, research assets, and a mix of start-ups and established firms. In this regard, Milton Keynes is a more instructive example of a New Town which has developed (and retained) a diversified local economy with strengths in digital and technology, professional services, and logistics sectors[4]. This has provided a certain level of resilience as well as well as strong economic performance – the city has one of the highest productivity levels in the UK, with output per job around 25% above the national average, and a total economy worth over £16 billion[5].
 
Among the Government’s shortlisted locations, economic rationales for some locations are already evident – for example, Leeds South Bank aligns with a growing urban innovation district, and the West Innovation Arc near Bristol reflects an established cluster in advanced engineering and aerospace. These examples reinforce the importance of aligning New Towns with existing economic strengths rather than attempting to create entirely new markets from scratch.
The Taskforce recommended that each location should generate an early economic vision alongside any town-wide masterplan. We believe this should be underpinned and informed by its specific context and strengths, and should provide:
 
  • A clear economic identity – for example, positioning the New Town as a hub for advanced manufacturing linked to a nearby city-region cluster, a centre for logistics and distribution capitalising on strategic transport connections, or a knowledge-based location anchored by existing university or R&D assets.

  • Early identification of growth sectors and economic functions reflecting local and regional strengths.

  • Development plans for these sectors and economic clusters, aligned with regional industrial strategies and combined authority priorities.

  • Partnerships with universities, further education colleges, employers, and R&D institutions, with a focus on skills.

  • A plan for cultivating SMEs, start-ups, and innovation networks.

  • Distributional effects – who is likely to benefit from the economic vision for the New Town, and what interventions might be required to share the benefits more widely. 
 

 

Addressing market failures in delivering employment land

 

From an economic perspective, investment in New Towns is underpinned by the principle of  addressing market failure. This is normally seen in the context of housing supply (with the current market not delivering enough), but is it also true of employment land or support for specific sectors and economic clusters.
For example, recent reports show severe laboratory space shortages across the UK, particularly in the Golden Triangle (London–Oxford–Cambridge) – in 2023, vacancy rates for fitted lab space were just 1% in Cambridge and London, and 7% in Oxford[6]. (While demand for laboratory space has softened in parts of the market recently, structural shortages remain.) Meanwhile, the UK has suffered a historic undersupply of industrial and logistics space[7]. There are several challenges to delivering these types of land use, including limited appetite among private developers to deliver commercial space with slower returns, sometimes higher upfront infrastructure costs, and a plan-making system that does not put the same onus on planning for employment land as it does for housing.
New Towns could provide an opportunity to deliver modern employment uses that the market and/or the planning system are not fully delivering. In particular, the development corporation model would allow the public sector to assemble land, capture value uplift, co-ordinate long-term delivery, and ensure balanced development that includes employment land rather than defaulting to housing. Advantages would include:
 
  • Co-ordinated masterplanning and land assembly powers, allowing for balance between uses.

  • Guaranteed allocations of serviced commercial land.

  • Delivery of shared facilities such as common utilities, equipment and central services.

  • Forward funding or land value capture models which could be used to fund necessary infrastructure.

  • Incentives for early-phase employers.

  • Long-term stewardship models that maintain employment land supply.

 

The value of the opportunity for a comprehensive masterplan for each New Town is that it allows for a dedicated employment land strategy, protecting space for commercial activity against viability pressures that often push for higher (residential) yields. Land can be safeguarded for uses that are higher value or in demand in the region or a country as a whole.
Recent research conducted by Lichfields resulted in preparation of a framework and associated tools to inform the approach to planning for modern economy uses.  

 

Source: Planning for a Modern Economy, Lichfields.

 
Ensuring New Towns are more than the sum of their parts

 

The most effective New Towns are those conceived as expansions of existing economic systems. As the Centre for Cities blog previously mentioned states, the Taskforce’s chosen locations are ‘in the right places, for the right reasons’, generally adjacent to or within commuting distance of major cities.
This allows New Towns to strengthen agglomeration effects – one of the most powerful drivers of productivity – by enabling:
  • larger integrated labour markets;
  • better matching between skills and jobs;
  • economies of scale in public and private services and facilities; and
  • greater potential for innovation and knowledge spillovers.

 

Economic governance 

 

The role of existing and new Combined Authorities and Metro Mayors, and other strategic-level authorities and groups of authorities aligned with the production of Strategic Development Strategies, will be critical in shaping and sustaining the economic success of New Towns. These bodies are well-positioned to align New Town development with wider regional economic strategies, infrastructure investment, and skills provision.
Effective governance will require long-term co-ordination between development corporations, local authorities and strategic authorities to ensure that New Towns are not delivered in isolation, but as fully integrated components of functioning city-region economies.

 

 

Conclusions

 

The next generation of New Towns will succeed only if they are conceived, designed, and delivered as economic interventions, not simply as large housing developments. Housing delivery is important, but it is not the (only) end goal. An important purpose of New Towns should be to create successful, productive places that reinforce wider regional and national economies.
The New Towns Taskforce made clear that New Towns are at their most effective when they help expand labour markets, relieve constraints in high‑growth areas, support agglomeration, and provide new platforms for business creation and innovation. The Government’s consultation on the seven shortlisted locations marks a critical next step in translating the New Towns vision into reality. However, it is clear that this initial group will not be the end of the story, with further locations and proposals expected to emerge.
What matters now is not just where these New Towns are built and how many homes they deliver, but how they will contribute to local, regional and national economies. Each must be grounded in a clear and realistic understanding of its role within regional and national markets – whether that is supporting high-value innovation clusters, enabling logistics and distribution growth, or expanding labour markets around the UK’s most productive cities.
If these principles are applied consistently, the New Towns programme has the potential to do far more than address housing need – it can help reshape the geography of economic growth across England.
 
 
Footnotes


[1] Available at: New Towns Taskforce: final report
[2] The seven locations shortlisted for further consultation are: Tempsford, Bedfordshire; Crews Hill and Chase Park, Enfield; Leeds South Bank; Manchester Victoria North; Thamesmead; Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc, South Gloucestershire; and Milton Keynes. New Towns Draft Programme - GOV.UK

[3] The New Towns report understands what New Towns are for, now it’s up to Government to deliver | Centre for Cities
[4] Source: UK Data - Analysis Report: Economic and Business Activity in Milton Keynes - UK Data

[5] Source: Milton Keynes City Council - Economic Development | Milton Keynes City Council
[6] Accelerating Innovation: A five-point plan to boost life science real estate | British Land

CONTINUE READING

EORs – what they mean for planning and development
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

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