What does the Natural and Built Environment Bill (the ‘NBEB’) have in store for urban planning? Is planning going to go upstairs and concentrate on spatial planning, or is it also going to stay downstairs and find new ways to address old problems in the nitty gritty of developments?
It is hard to understand the implications of the Bill for urban environments - environments that house, entertain, protect and sustain over 85% of the population. The short answer to the question of what does the Bill mean for the future of towns and cities is ‘not much’. Gone are any references to amenity and the quality of the environment. Along with that goes character and identity. Even health and safety is a tenuous reason to manage land uses and development. There are still effects to be managed- one of the purposes of NBE plans is to manage adverse effects. Urban areas are hot beds of small scale spill over effects (externalities), many of which generate adverse effects on others, but it is unclear what effects are to be managed. At least we know that scenic views are out. Will references to promoting outcomes for the benefit of the environment provide a rock to anchor urban design?
In come references to responsive urban environments, housing choices and ample supply of land. All worthy goals, but somehow the Bill has lost focus on the wider purpose of urban environments - not just to house people but to also foster social, economic and cultural exchange. Read the Bill and the impression is that urban planning is no more than a handmaiden to urban development. The desire to free things up so as to generate housing supply remains the dominant theme, yet should this be the only or at least main objective for an urban environment? If you are central government under pressure to build more public housing, address emergency accommodation and help support middle class families to own a house, then yes it is the main (only focus). Don’t let infrastructure, NIMBYs or amenity get in the way!
The statutory recognition of spatial planning is helpful, and hopefully with this comes some real commitment by central government to implement the results. But history tends to suggest that spatial planning is more of a process, rather than a fixed product that endures. There are signs of the emergence of a new economic order —a shift the Economist suggested that may be as consequential as the rise of Keynesianism after the second world war, and the pivot to free markets and globalisation in the 1990s. This shift will play out in urban areas and may be disruptive of many current trends and patterns. We are already seeing a decline in the relevance of large, central office buildings.
Spatial planning is not new - the Bill codifies current practice. Links to infrastructure funding and finance are made, but at a general level. These are always the weakest link and unless strengthened, then spatial planning will founder in the gap between meeting today's needs versus developing cities that can meet future challenges.
It is at the level of day-to-day development that the NBEB is unclear as to its intentions for the urban environment. At what point and in what way should private development be modified to respect the public good and to ameliorate effects on other activities? These tricky questions are left unanswered.
Look at the first objective of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development - a well-functioning urban environment that enables all people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety, now and into the future. There is reference to health and safety and to the well beings. Turn to the NBEB and all the fluffy stuff gets trimmed back - the ‘system’ outcome for urban environments is well functioning urban and rural areas that are responsive to the diverse and changing needs of people and communities. Even the Randerson report - which is apparently the basis of the NBEB - said that for the built environment there should be a general requirement to enhance features and characteristics that contribute to quality built environments. This reflects the broad role of the proposed Natural and Built Environments Act in managing the use and development of resources.
It feels like that too much has been stripped out in the mad dash to promote housing construction; that any reference to amenity will be hijacked by existing residents, so best avoid saying anything. But there is a distinction between public amenity and private amenity. The public - private interface is critical to whether urban environments sustain safe, resilient communities that can be enjoyed by its inhabitants. Even the basic Medium Density Residential Standards have a nod to public amenity with the standards relating to windows on street frontages and landscaping and scope for related controls on front fences. Does the new NaBEB support the outcomes sought by the MDRS?
We need responsive urban environments, but not just ones responsive to housing supply and demand. The 1980s book Responsive Environments (Ian Bentley and co) attempted to demonstrate the specific characteristics that make for comprehensible, friendly and controllable (safe) urban places -'Responsive Environments' - as opposed to the alienating environments often then built in the name of housing supply.
So many important community outcomes are tied to the functionality and quality of the public-private interface - crime and feelings of safety, propensity to walk and cycle, mental health and well being to name a few.
Could the quality and safety of the public environment at least be added to the system outcomes for urban areas?
