In a recent interview with Kenneth George, I had the opportunity to sit down with Sarah Palmer, a seasoned urban planner and active member of the Construction Industry Council (CIC). Our conversation centred around the CIC’s response to the government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the potential implications for the construction industry and urban development.
Focus360 Energy: property compliance services – pre-planning to post-construction. Learn more.
As Sarah settled into her chair, she exuded a sense of purpose. Her passion for urban planning was evident, making it clear why she was deeply involved in the CIC’s initiatives.
“Sarah,” I began, “the CIC has expressed some reservations about the government’s plans to relax planning constraints to increase housing. Can you elaborate on these concerns?”
Sarah nodded thoughtfully. “Absolutely, Kenneth. While we commend the government for recognising the importance of planning and local plans, we’re worried that the current proposals may not deliver the desired outcomes without additional resources. The government’s ambition to build more houses is laudable, but the execution needs a more nuanced approach.”
She continued, “The CIC’s primary concern is that the rush to increase housing volume could compromise quality. The NPPF’s approach to permitted development rights (PDR) is a significant point of contention. We’ve seen that housing created under PDR often lacks the quality and sustainability that communities need. If the government pushes for more homes through this mechanism, it could be detrimental in the long run.”
As Sarah spoke, it became clear that the CIC’s stance was not just about opposing the government’s plans but about advocating for a balanced approach that ensures high-quality development.
“The CIC’s response to the consultation highlights the need for strategic planning and better support for retrofitting existing buildings,” she explained. “We believe that reusing existing resources, including converting buildings, should be a stronger policy within the NPPF. It’s not just about building new homes but also about making efficient use of what we already have.”
I leaned forward, intrigued by this perspective. “So, you’re saying that the policy of ‘encouraging’ the reuse of existing resources is not enough?”
“Exactly,” Sarah replied. “The NPPF needs to incentivise retrofitting more robustly. This aligns with our commitment to sustainability and reducing carbon emissions. Mina Hasman, chair of our climate change committee, has been vocal about the importance of designing homes that are resilient and low carbon. We need planning policies that support ambitious standards like the Future Homes Standard and the adoption of blue-green infrastructure.”
Her emphasis on sustainability was compelling. It was clear that the CIC was not just concerned with immediate housing needs but also with the long-term impact on communities and the environment.
“Another critical issue,” Sarah added, “is the staffing in planning departments. The government’s proposal to hire 300 new planning officers sounds promising, but it’s insufficient. We’ve lost a significant number of planners in public service, and adding 300 officers barely scratches the surface. These new planners need to be strategically deployed, perhaps at a regional level, to address understaffing and skills shortages effectively.”
I could sense the frustration in her voice, underscoring the challenges faced by the planning sector. “It sounds like the CIC is advocating for a more strategic allocation of resources. How do you see this playing out in practice?”
Sarah smiled, appreciating the question. “We’re advocating for a strategic planning workforce across combined authorities. This could help alleviate some of the pressure on local planning departments and ensure that specialist expertise is utilised effectively. It’s about creating a robust framework that supports high-quality, sustainable development rather than just increasing numbers.”
Her vision for a strategic workforce resonated with the broader theme of quality over quantity. It was a reminder that effective urban planning requires careful consideration and resources.
As our conversation drew to a close, I asked Sarah for her final thoughts on the CIC’s response to the NPPF consultation.
“I think it’s crucial that we strike a balance,” she said earnestly. “We need more homes, but not at the expense of quality and sustainability. The government’s intentions are good, but the execution needs refinement. The CIC is committed to working with the government to ensure that our planning policies support the creation of vibrant, sustainable communities.”
Her words echoed the CIC’s commitment to thoughtful, high-quality development. It was a powerful reminder that in the rush to build, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture.
As I wrapped up my notes, I reflected on the importance of voices like Sarah’s in shaping our cities’ future. The CIC’s response to the NPPF consultation is not just a critique but a call to action, urging us to consider the long-term impact of our planning decisions.
By Kenneth George
Be the first to comment