黑洞社区

Last month the housing secretary Robert Jenrick launched a new housing design body and reforms to the national planning policy intended to put the concept of beauty at the heart of the system. The man asked to chair the new Office for Place is the person associated more than any other individual with the government鈥檚 agenda to improve the design of new homes and places: Nicholas Boys Smith.

The founder of campaigning charity Create Streets and, more recently, chair of the government鈥檚 黑洞社区 Better, 黑洞社区 Beautiful Commission, Boys Smith has spent more than a decade seeking to persuade planners, policy-makers, politicians and the industry that the houses we build can be 鈥� and need to be 鈥� so much better. An advocate for a 鈥済entle density鈥� approach to development and the use of design coding, he is, according to the Bartlett Real Estate Institute鈥檚 Yolande Barnes, quite simply a 鈥渕an on a mission鈥�.

Speaking at the launch, Boys Smith began by hailing the 鈥渘ear-universal support鈥� which greeted Living with Beauty, the final report of the commission. The 180-page document offered a detailed prescription for creating new places by bringing in trees and nature and developing according to 鈥減rovably popular鈥� codes. While it wasn鈥檛 quite a consensus 鈥� former Redrow chief executive John Tutte was sharply critical 鈥� it undoubtedly did garner much praise.

Some incredibly clear themes came through consistently during the beauty report, particularly the sense that communities are powerless in the face of big developers. People don鈥檛 want the same homes built in Surrey as in Yorkshire or Berkshire

Nicholas Boys Smith

But the same cannot be said of the government鈥檚 wider reforms of the planning system, of which these are part. Indeed, they are so divisive that they apparently helped to overturn a 16,000-seat Conservative majority at the Chesham and Amersham by-election in June. The government says that it wants to create a more predictable, 鈥渞ules-based鈥� planning system, while critics say the changes will take power away from local people.

What is less known is that Boys Smith, a supporter of the broader reforms, is himself a former special adviser to Conservative social security secretary Peter Lilley and a former Tory parliamentary candidate at the 2001 election. Some critics even see his 鈥渂eauty agenda鈥� as part of a government smokescreen designed to get radical deregulation of planning past restive backbenchers and the wider public.

Boys Smith spoke exclusively to 黑洞社区 magazine and the Housing Today website about what this month鈥檚 changes to permitted development rights mean for the industry, what he thinks of the wider reforms, and why beauty is no smokescreen.

Road to Damascus

Westminster School and University of Cambridge-educated Boys Smith can trace his professional interest in urban design back to a specific moment. It was 10 years ago, on a trip to B&Q to buy pot plants, that he drove past an estate being demolished near his home in Southwark, south-east London. Looking at the plans to replace the flattened buildings, his immediate reaction was: 鈥淲ell, I wouldn鈥檛 want to live there.鈥�

Wondering why on earth such development was being proposed, he started researching the topic, around his then day job as a consultant in financial services. He even asked one of the designers behind it some simple questions over the rationale. 鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 only that the guy couldn鈥檛 answer,鈥� Boys Smith says. 鈥淗e obviously thought I was a bit naive asking such simplistic questions.鈥�

Spurred on by his wife, who told him that he was becoming an urbanism 鈥渂ore鈥�, he shared a draft of his own thinking on the topic with a friend, whose response 鈥� 鈥淵ou lucky bastard, you鈥檝e just found what you鈥檙e going to do for the rest of your life鈥� 鈥� inspired him to change career. The essay became the founding paper of Create Streets, the organisation that helped to turn him into undoubtedly the most politically influential thinker on placemaking in England.

Eloquent and very persuasive, the one-time McKinsey management consultant is no mere dry statistician, peppering his 鈥渂eauty commission鈥� report with musings of moral philosophers and describing his new role as helping to 鈥渕ake places where the body can prosper and the soul can sing鈥�.

Boys Smith鈥檚 core argument is that patterns of development should be based around what people genuinely want and value. And that if the planning system and the industry actually listened to this, they would see opposition to development reduce.

Gentle density

But there is a contradiction here. His beauty commission report recommended development at what he called 鈥済entle density鈥�, which means neither rows of semi-detached houses on the one hand nor gleaming towers on the other but instead terraces or mansion blocks based on traditional street patterns. This is despite the evidence that detached homes are seen as most desirable by the public.

Boys Smith does not deny this. 鈥淟ike the vast majority of people in all countries,鈥� Boys Smith admitted at the launch event, the British people 鈥渟eek the joys of the garden suburb [鈥�] People want space.鈥�

He explains this apparent contradiction by stressing that not only are there a whole host of sustainability, health and land-take benefits to developing more densely, there is also a difference between the detached homes that people overwhelmingly say they want in surveys and the denser homes they actually value the most when parting with their cash to buy a property 鈥� their so-called 鈥渞evealed preferences鈥�.

In other words, when people are forced to make a real choice of somewhere to live, they have to address the tension between the desire for space and the need for proximity to work, friends and services granted by denser urban forms. 鈥淲hen you look at the actual pricing data, then you find that areas at higher density than detached housing [are] higher value,鈥� he says.

This is not Cabe 2

This kind of gentle density is, Boys Smith maintains, currently driven out of developments by a combination of the business models of developers, the box-ticking of planners and the stipulations of highways engineers. Replacing that, his vision is of communities 鈥渁sking for beauty鈥� by drawing up local design codes which enforce delivery of 鈥減rovably popular鈥� development types, alongside planning regulations that give communities the power to 鈥渞efuse ugliness鈥� where they find it.

Last month鈥檚 launch, then, marked the first move towards this new system, with the setting鈥憉p of Boys Smith鈥檚 all-new Office for Place. It is to be tasked with supporting the development of local design codes, and publishing research and best practice on housing design (see 鈥淭he Office for Place鈥�, below, for details).

Alongside the launch, the government also set out changes to planning policy via the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which make achieving 鈥渂eautiful [鈥�] places鈥� part of the core mission of the planning system for the first time. There is also a rewriting of the manual for streets guidance for highways engineers under way. This is seen as essential, given their role in blocking traditional street patterns and discouraging the planting of trees.

But isn鈥檛 the brief for the body 鈥� to support local communities in delivering good design and disseminate best practice for how to do it 鈥� uncannily similar to that of Cabe, the building design body that was culled in David Cameron鈥檚 2011 bonfire of the quangos? Not so, Boys Smith says. 鈥淭he Office for Place is not Cabe 2,鈥� he says, adding that the 鈥渨orld has moved on鈥� since that body 鈥� which pioneered the use of design review but also undertook research and trumpeted good practice 鈥� was abolished as a government agency. 鈥淭hings Cabe was not able to do are now doable.

鈥淭he ease with which you can do some of the research is increasing, and the opportunities for broad digital engagement have been absolutely revolutionised. We鈥檙e at a different point. It鈥檚 not set up to be Cabe; it鈥檚 set up to meet the needs we now have.鈥�

鈥楶辞飞别谤濒别蝉蝉鈥�

Of course, Boys Smith鈥檚 focus on gentle density is an implicit rejection of the vast majority of what housebuilders build, and it is unsurprising, then, that his original report prompted sharp criticism from Redrow and others of its 鈥渘arrow鈥� focus.

But the government is not shying away from this tension 鈥� anything but. Jenrick was explicit at the launch event that the beauty agenda is in part designed to give local people 鈥渢he wherewithal to stand up to the volume housebuilders鈥� on matters of design. The prescription stresses more community control to reflect local vernaculars, and a rejection of firms being allowed to roll out uniform house types across the country.

While Boys Smith鈥檚 rhetoric is more measured than Jenrick鈥檚, he says little to suggest that the anti-volume builder comments are just a political stance. Smaller developers need to be encouraged, he says, with the market 鈥渙ddly concentrated鈥� into a few very large players. This means that builders 鈥渄on鈥檛 face the level of competition they should鈥�.

He adds: 鈥淪ome incredibly clear themes came through consistently during the beauty report, particularly the sense that communities are powerless in the face of big developers. People don鈥檛 want the same homes built in Surrey as in Yorkshire or Berkshire.鈥�

Planning reform

It is impossible, however, to wholly separate these tweaks to the NPPF 鈥� and the setting-up of the Office for Place 鈥� from the deeper reforms of the planning system envisaged by the government, which include the adoption of a zonal system and the scrapping of section 106. Jenrick wrote in last summer鈥檚 white paper that the reforms were designed to 鈥減lace a higher regard on quality, design and local vernacular鈥� than ever before, with design codes being tasked with much of the heavy lifting to ensure that proposed 鈥済rowth鈥� zones are built out according to communities鈥� desires.

However, Boys Smith, who was part of a tight clique brought in to advise ministers on the white paper, declines both to reveal the long-awaited details of how these reforms will be brought forward 鈥� a government response to the white paper is promised in the autumn ahead of legislation 鈥� or shed much light on what the reforms will do to embed the 鈥渂eauty鈥� agenda.

鈥淐learly the direction of travel in the Planning Bill is more focused on shorter and more visual local plans, and that will only make this [beauty] agenda more relevant,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut the detail goes beyond what I can say 鈥� I haven鈥檛 read a draft of the bill.鈥�

Controversy

Despite the controversy attached to the wider reforms, which Labour has dubbed a developers鈥� charter and other critics say will reduce democratic involvement in planning, Boys Smith is adamant that they are essential to improve the quality of new places. What others view as removing democratic involvement 鈥� proposals include limiting the time frame for creating local plans, setting housing numbers from Whitehall, and removing the ability of local communities to stop applications being approved in allocated 鈥済rowth鈥� areas 鈥� he sees as delivering 鈥減lanning certainty鈥� to developers.

The idea is that increased certainty will reduce the barrier to entry for new players posed by the current planning system, thereby increasing competition and forcing developers to up their game on design.

鈥淯ltimately, creating more of the right places is very hard to do without some level of change to the whole system,鈥� he says, adding that the government is 鈥済enuine鈥� and 鈥減assionate鈥� about the beauty agenda, and 鈥渢hinking hard about how we make better places鈥�.

He insists that the government鈥檚 proposed reforms are not deregulatory, but instead are about 鈥渂etter regulation鈥�. He adds: 鈥淐urrently we have nationalised development rights, but are unclear about how that nationalisation will be implemented.

鈥淚t is right to be unclear and flexible for unclear or complex situations 鈥� a system that can be case-specific 鈥� but it is not helpful to have a system that is case-specific for the 鈥榞ood ordinary鈥�, because that鈥檚 just what stops people doing things, which is what鈥檚 happening. And it is not good that people are uncertain or fearful about what development will mean. If we can give people more confidence about the nature of development, that must be a good thing.鈥�

Seventeen percent of shops are empty now. when you鈥檝e got a housing challenge, it is indefensible to be supporting a system that is allowing that high a level of vacant use

Nicholas Boys Smith

But does he worry that being tied in with the controversy over the wider reforms could undermine the rollout of the beauty agenda with which he is specifically tasked? 鈥淚鈥檓 very mindful there are risks in changing how we do things. But you have got to take those risks, you have got to go for it, because I think the prize is great.

鈥淣ot only have we not been creating enough homes, we have not been creating good enough places. I hope we can continue to make it as non-controversial as possible, but actually a bit of controversy forces you to have the conversation.鈥�

For many government critics, the continued expansion of permitted development 鈥� which has allowed buildings such as Terminus House in Harlow and windowless industrial units in Watford to be converted to housing without planning permission 鈥� undermines any claim that it can have to be on the side of quality, or design, or 鈥渂eauty鈥�.

Despite a government-commissioned review of permitted development finding last year that it delivered on average worse-quality housing over a wide range of measurable criteria, ministers have subsequently brought in a range of new rights, allowing the conversion of almost all town鈥慶entre properties to housing, as well as the demolition and rebuilding of vacant units 鈥� albeit with some new safeguards.

Boys Smith鈥檚 beauty commission report criticised the rollout of permitted development, but he now seems to have changed his mind on it 鈥� given the light and space standards subsequently brought in 鈥� and appears to see no contradiction between it and the beauty agenda. His view appears to be that, as change of use under permitted development does not allow change in external appearance, it is neutral in 鈥渂eauty鈥� terms, but by allowing the reuse of existing buildings, permitted development promotes the sustainable adaption of towns and cities.

鈥淭he idea that it鈥檚 possible to micromanage what happens to every shop is, I think, for the birds, and people have to realise you have got to have the confidence to let high streets and towns and cities evolve their use over time,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 mean you abandon all regulation or quality control of what鈥檚 expected over minimum homes standards or how it interacts with the public realm, but it doesn鈥檛 mean you try to control every change of use, because I don鈥檛 think that works.

鈥淚 think it鈥檚 17% of shops that are empty now. When you鈥檝e got a housing challenge, it is indefensible to be supporting a system that is allowing that high a level of vacant use.鈥�

Permitted development

Boys Smith鈥檚 support for permitted development is likely to raise eyebrows among many, particularly in the design community, who have so far been supportive of the beauty agenda but are violently opposed to PD. It may even fuel suspicions that the former Conservative party prospective parliamentary candidate for Walthamstow is actually a political appointee, and that the beauty reforms are a smokescreen for the broader agenda around planning.

It is a charge that he denies vehemently. 鈥淭his is not a smokescreen for carpeting over the country with boxes dumped in fields. I don鈥檛 think anyone who spends any time with me could think otherwise,鈥� he says.

鈥淐reate Streets has spent the last seven or eight years doing research into what people like. We鈥檝e worked with dozens of neighbourhood and community groups across the country. If someone wants to say that [I鈥檓 a political appointee] they can. [But] I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a fair or legitimate summary of the work that Create Streets has done.

鈥淚f you come at this from a very partisan view 鈥� if you think all state regulation is bad, we can鈥檛 really help you there. And, if you think that talking about anything other than social housing is a middle-class distraction, we can鈥檛 help you there either.

鈥淪o, for people with quite extreme political views, we鈥檙e probably not very helpful. But for the broad mass of people that want to create popular, lovable places with some heart, I think we鈥檝e got something to say.鈥�

There is no doubt that Boys Smith is committed to improving the way that most houses are built and designed in this country, and that a shake-up of the many rules 鈥� such as highways codes 鈥� and business models to improve what he describes as the 鈥済ood ordinary鈥� could do a huge service to both the country and, in the long term, the industry. Boys Smith is a genuine deep thinker on these issues and certainly not just a political place-man.

But the jury is still out on whether his growing association with more controversial ideas on permitted development and in the white paper 鈥� of which he is one of the most eloquent advocates 鈥� will ultimately undermine the coalition of support that appeared to have formed around the beauty agenda.