Skip to main content
Log in

Urban design and the national planning policy framework for England

  • Original Article
  • Published:
URBAN DESIGN International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Design control through the planning application process is not well understood and is not practised consistently. Similarly, wider urban design decisions and policies within town planning locally, ranging from development briefs to development plan policies on urban design, are made in a varied manner, often without reference to urban design principles. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) presents an opportunity to provide coherent guidance on urban design principles that should be applied locally. The NPPF, and reactions to its potential to address urban design issues, are examined, partly through primary data from urban design experts and community organisations. Literature relating to planning governance and urban design policy making is also considered in terms of the potential place of the NPPF in relation to urban design matters. A consensus emerged that certain urban design principles and tools should be included in the NPPF, or as a supplement to it, with a degree of prescription but without providing detail more appropriately covered at the local level. Although the NPPF reiterates some key points from previous guidance on urban design, and is prescriptive with a requirement for local design review panels, the lack of reference to some well recognised urban design principles and tools indicates a supplement may be needed to strengthen the urban design message in the NPPF as a key national policy document. The tension between shifting power to local levels and simultaneously producing useful national policy is likely to a problem facing many governments worldwide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S. and Smith, G. (1985) Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. London: The Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (2011) Parliamentary debates urban design. Blog, http://regenbrown.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/parliament-debates-urban-design/.

  • CABE. (2003) The Use of URBAN DESIGN Codes. London: CABE.

  • CABE. (2005) Building for Life: Delivering Great Places to Live. London: CABE.

  • CABE. (2009) Design Review: Principles and Practice. London: CABE.

  • Cooper, R. and Boyko, C. (2010) How to design a city in five easy steps: Exploring VivCity 2020's process and tools for urban design decision making? Journal of Urbanism 3 (3): 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, M . (2008) Design Quality in New Housing: Learning from the Netherlands. Oxford: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, P. and Reiner, T. (1962) A choice theory of planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 28 (May): 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. London: HMSO.

  • DCLG. (2011) Draft National Planning Policy Framework. London: HMSO.

  • DCLG. (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. London: HMSO.

  • DCLG Committee. (2011) Eighth Report: The NPPF. 15 December. London: HMSO.

  • Design Council CABE. (2011) The Bishop Review of Design Support. Design Council. London: CABE.

  • DETR/CABE. (2000) By Design: Companion Guide to PPS 1. London: HMSO.

  • DfT. (2007) Manual for Streets. London: HMSO.

  • DOE. (1980) Development Control Policy and Practice: Circular 22/80. London: HMSO.

  • Donnelly, M. (2011) Shapps: Neighbourhood plans will put an end to legoland homes. Regeneration and Renewal, http://www.regen.net/bulletin/regendaily/article/1058917/shapps-neighbourhood-plan, accessed 15 March 2011.

  • Ellis, H. (2011) Questions of far reaching reform. Town and Country Planning 80 (1): 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstadt, V. (2011) Shaping the NPPF. Town and Country Planning 80 (2): 63–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagyard, T. (2010) Local authorities and urban design. URBAN DESIGN (Winter): 16–17.

  • Hall, P. (2010) Lessons from European development models. Town and Country Planning 79 (2): 61–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2006) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickley, D. (2011) Porritt slates pickles for planning ‘smear campaign’. Planning, 14 June 2011.

  • Homes and Community Agency. (2010) Quality Reviewer – Appraising the Design Quality of Development Proposals. Plymouth: Latimer Trend and co.

  • Kettering Borough Council. (2010) Parish Plans and Village Design Statements. Kettering Borough Council. Council Report.

  • Lindblom, C. (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madanipour, A. (1997) Ambiguities of urban design. In: M. Carmona and S. Tiesdell (eds.) URBAN DESIGN Reader. Oxford: Architectural Press, pp. 12–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, E. (2011a) Design review in the UK: Its role in town planning decision making. URBAN DESIGN International 16 (2): 94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, E. (2011b) Design and access statements: Case study in NE England. URBAN DESIGN and Planning 164 (DP3): 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punter, J. (2011) Urban design and the English urban renaissance 1999–2009: A review and preliminary evaluation. Journal of URBAN DESIGN 16 (1): 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quartermain, S. (2011a) Design and Planning: Letter to Chief Planning Officers in Local Planning Authorities in England, May 2011. London: CLG.

  • Quartermain, S. (2011b) Planning for Growth: Letter to Chief Planning Officers in Local Authorities in England, March 2011. London: CLG.

  • Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1974) referenced by Rowley, A (1998), Private property decision makers and the quality of urban design. In: M. Carmona and S. Tiesdell (eds.) (2007), URBAN DESIGN Reader. Oxford: Architectural Press, pp. 332–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • RTPI. (2011a) National Planning Policy Framework Pre-Consultation Phase: RTPI Initial Proposals. London: RTPI.

  • RTPI. (April 2011b) Government Announcements May 2010–April 2011. London: RTPI.

  • Rydin, Y. (2011) The promise of localism. Town and Country Planning 80 (1): 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2011) A delicate balance. Town and Country Planning 80 (1): 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paterson, E. Urban design and the national planning policy framework for England. Urban Des Int 17, 144–155 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2012.3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2012.3

Keywords

Navigation