Robert Jenrick’s Grand Designs

The government launched the National Model Design Code on Saturday.

Releasing important consultations over the weekend has become rather a tradition for MHCLG. Maybe they’re not fans of The Masked Singer.

Key to the Design Code is a belief that beautiful design can be objectively determined, and that people are more likely to support development in their area if the new neighbourhood looks attractive.

The Model Design Code is a good piece of work. Developed by consultancy URBED, it sets out a concise and understandable recipe for high quality places and attractive buildings. It includes guidance on coding plans, masterplans, movement, nature, public space, the built form, use of space and buildings, car parking and design.

Will it deliver?

The government has two stated aims. First, they want to turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs: Not In My Back Yard to Yes, In My Back Yard! In their vision, they see opponents of new development gazing upon the beauty wrought by developers and becoming converts. Second, they desire to improve our built environment – to make our green and pleasant land more green and more pleasant, even as we build on it. Every road should be lined with trees, Robert Jenrick has ordained.  Both are noble objectives, but are they achievable?

There are several issues we should be concerned about: not so much the Code itself, but what the government proposes to do with it.

Provably popular

The phrase “provably popular” appears without much explanation in both the guidance notes for the design code and last August’s Planning for the Future white paper. The white paper suggests Neighbourhood Plans would be repurposed to take on the job of creating design codes, while the Model Design Code talks about workshops, surveys and forums.

When would all this happen? During the six-week Local Plan consultation period, or at some other time? Who would decide what was popular? People who engage in planning consultations are more likely to be older and wealthier, with the time, experience and confidence to get involved. If we really want to engage the community in deciding how developments should look, we need to include the busy parents, young professionals and schoolchildren.

What is beauty?

Last April, I ran a study to see which building designs people preferred. Most respondents liked more traditional designs with detailing that made them look interesting both from a distance and close-up. A London townhouse came out top, with a 1970s social housing block propping up the bottom of the table.

The most interesting finding was that building professionals – developers, architects and planners – had very different ideas to everyone else on which buildings looked the best. The gap was far greater than between men and women or even between the young and old. Several larger studies have confirmed this result.

A local design code may look very different if it’s been driven by professionals rather than ordinary people.

Permitted Development by the back door?

In its desire to get more homes built in recent years, the government has supercharged Permitted Development Rights. An office block can, for example, be converted into apartments with minimal planning permission. It greatly reduces the control local authorities have over these developments and many are concerned that the policy is ushering in the slums of tomorrow.

What if the design code was used, not as one item to be considered as part of a planning application, but a tickbox to bypass the planning application altogether? Under the proposals, developments in areas designated as “Growth” or “Renewal” would not require a planning application if they complied with the design code and other policies in the Local Plan.

That could be a single house, or it could be an estate of hundreds of new houses being approved without any public consultation or planning committee.

Who’s picking up the bill?

Good design codes are hard to write. Many planning departments don’t have the skills to develop a local design code of the quality required, nor the time to widely consult with residents. The guidance notes set out the challenge, saying:

“The team responsible for producing a code will need to be an inter-disciplinary team of built environment professionals and may include architects, landscape architects, urban designers and local planning authority officers. “

There may be one code covering a whole council area, or multiple codes. In my borough of Stockport, it’s hard to imagine the same code working for the town centre and for the small village of Strines, nestling on the edge of the Peak District.

This will need to be done properly, but there is – as yet – no hint that government funding would accompany the burdens.

Bait and switch

The model code says that a mix of uses – houses, shops, cafes and offices, for example – will be required in town and city centres and encouraged or permitted elsewhere. That’s a sensible approach. Local authorities need to retain good control over the mix of uses to help retail centres stay vibrant, and the challenges today are greater than ever.

But the government has recently made it much easier for developers to change the use of a property without planning permission and proposes going even further: from a shop to a house or office, for example. That makes a mockery of the design code. A developer could build in accordance with the use mix laid down in the local design code, then convert everything to offices a week later.

Good or bad?

The model design code has been welcomed, and rightly so. The implementation is far more challenging. None of the issues I’ve raised need be show-stoppers. A properly-funded scheme that engaged the whole community and didn’t allow developers to avoid consultation on their planning applications would undoubtably lead to higher-quality developments. Whether the government is willing to deliver any of that…who knows if Robert Jenrick will be able to see the wood for the trees that he wants lining every new road.


* Iain Roberts is a Stockport councillor, LGA Peer and consultation, communications and public affairs consultant specialising in the built environment.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Helen Dudden 3rd Feb '21 - 10:18am

    I live on an open plan estate. Do you remember the ideas produced many years ago. The problems with this is it’s not regarded as a garden area. I get dog walkers, outside my kitchen window going down to the fields behind.
    Consultation on any development makes it open to further thoughts and could prove improvement.
    I’m concerned that unless development is transparent for all, this in turn could be problematic.

  • nigel hunter 3rd Feb '21 - 11:45am

    Not just roads but train lines could do with trees by there sides. Especially where there is the risk of landslides blocking road, rail. This can also apply to where roads rail are raised from ground level where they are put at the sides to prevent the road rail from sliding.
    Does this design code also allow wind generators ,solar power sights to be put where they are of use to the area and/or linked to the electric system?

  • Iain Roberts 3rd Feb '21 - 11:47am

    Hi Helen – that’s a good point. There’s a general principle in urban planning around what’s called “defensible space” and the need to have a transition between the public and private realm. That could be as simple as a front porch or a small front garden. Those principles haven’t always been followed in the past, but are in the Model Design Code.

  • Iain Roberts 3rd Feb '21 - 11:51am

    Hi Nigel – on your second point, the code does allow for local wind/solar, without going into any detail (the phrase it uses is “Local low energy networks: May be encouraged by codes”). Tree planting by railway lines is outside the scope the Code.

  • Helen Dudden 3rd Feb '21 - 6:43pm

    One point, some trees were removed from some side by side of the line between Bath and Bristol, Health and Safety after an accident.

  • Iain Roberts 8th Feb '21 - 11:14am

    Peter – I agree completely. The design code is quite good on that (e.g. promoting mixed, walkable, developments) but some elements are beyond its scope.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Fiona
    I'm a member of Compass, and while I continue to support the overall advertised aims of the group, I can't help but think that they only see the LibDems as a me...
  • Barry Lofty
    It is really sad to see the NHS under so much pressure and services deteriorating mainly because of the reasons given by Catherine Royce. The NHS is something t...
  • Yeovil Yokel
    An intriguing, and possibly masterful, choice for a safe rural Conservative seat. A major, eh? - Paddy was but a mere captain. You don’t want to miss this o...
  • Steve Trevethan
    Might we be facing two problems at the same time, which may or maybe not significantly connected? One is increasing poverty and the other is increasing inflati...
  • Steve Trevethan
    Might it be the case that the attitudes and performance of the Metropolitan Police in this matter come somewhere on a continuum/spectrum between inept and corru...