Context 167 - March 2021

C O N T E X T 1 6 7 : M A R C H 2 0 2 1 49 massing, details and materials. The toolkit in Building in Context sets out a similar list of principles. By Design was effectively updated with the publication in 2017 of The Design Companion for Planning and Placemaking by Urban Design London and published by RIBA Publishing. I feel duty bound to mention it because it was very ably edited by Context ’s editor Rob Cowan (who was also co-author of By Design ) and contains a contribution about the historic environment from this writer. It provides more detailed guidance than By Design and also includes reference to climate change. At last, this brings me to the latest guidance from government (England only, and my apologies to readers from the other home nations). How does it compare with what has gone before? The National Design Guide (2019) is the easier one to deal with as its link with past guidance is relatively straightforward. In common with those documents which I have mentioned, it lists basic aspects of urban design: layout, form, scale, appearance, landscape and materials. It then sets out in more detail guidance on what it describes as its Ten Characteristics of Placemaking. These are: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, homes and buildings, resources and lifespan. While the titles may be different, the good practice which it advises does not differ markedly from conventional urban design wisdom. For the historic environment practitioner, there is the reassurance that context and identity are identified upfront, but other parts might be criticised, such as the implied flexibility in relation to tall buildings. There is also some recognition of climate change with references to sustainable drainage systems and an energy hierarchy. So what is new? First, and not surprisingly, the guide relates the guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Second, near the beginning of the document, it states that the fundamental principles of good design are fitness for purpose, durability and sense of delight. As I am sure readers will recognise, this is a direct reference to Vitruvius. Third, on a more practical front, it recommends the use of design codes. This is a more controversial element, which is included in the planning white paper. Design codes can be a valuable tool in placemaking, but their proposed universal use at plan-making stage has been one of the major criticisms of the planning white paper. Similarly, the concept of a national model design code which would be used in the absence of a local design code raises a number of questions in relation to local decision making and potential stifling of innovation. Fourth, it references Living with Beauty . Living with Beauty , published in January 2020, is the report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. It is not government guidance, but its cross references to the National Design Guide and planning white paper mean that it has been influential. It lists a need for reform under the following headings: planning, communities, stewardship, regeneration, neighbourhoods, nature, education and management. If one puts the references to beauty to one side, it also builds on much that has gone before it in placemaking. It is difficult to argue with its call for an integrated approach to planning and placemaking, the need for long-term investment, and greater democratic involvement. Its recognition of the harm caused by car-centric design, the emphasis on the value of the historic environment, acknowledgment of the importance of health and well-being and the value embodied energy are all positive elements, as is the call for a ‘chief placemaker’ in local planning authorities. However, its call to encourage beauty and refuse ugliness, although full of worthy intentions, does pose problems for planning control, not least because of its lack of definition of beauty and the danger of reviving style wars. Throughout its short history, one of urban design’s strengths has been to steer itself away from architectural style and confine itself to less subjective criteria. In its short life, urban design has come a long way. On a positive note, it now appears to be potentially playing a much more important role in planning. Equally important is that recent guidance pays due attention the importance of the historic environment. As I mentioned earlier, it is important that we, as individuals and as a profession, are able to take advantage of this. I have already made the comment to others in the sector that we should be promoting integrated conservation and urban design teams in local planning authorities. Less positively, the planning white paper’s zoning proposals and reliance on design codes might also be seen as part of the government’s deregulation agenda, and a threat to local democracy. One certainty is that these issues will not go away, and there will be further policy and legislative changes proposed during 2021. The IHBC will be continuing to engage with others in the historic environment sector and respond to government accordingly. David McDonald, chair@ihbc.org.uk