Body’s interim chair said move risks ministers “marking their own homework” on housing design
Nicholas Boys Smith has said the government’s decision to shut down the Office for Place risks ministers “marking their own homework” on housing design.
Yesterday housing minister Matthew Pennycook announced the arms length body would be scrapped, arguing its role could be more “effectively and efficiently delivered” within the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).
Set up in July 2021 by former housing secretary Robert Jenrick, the Office for Place was tasked with ensuring quality design in new housing projects and driving the adoption of design codes by local authorities.
Transformed into an independent body in July last year with plans for a head office in Stoke on Trent, it was envisaged as an enabler for the government’s house building targets by promoting public consent for new schemes.
Boys Smith, the founder of Create Streets and the interim chair of Office for Place, said the decision to close the body was a “mistake” and questioned whether the drive for quality in planning policy would be lost.
He said: “Naturally I am hugely disappointed by this news and think that it is a mistake or I would not have set it up. In the, correct, dash for quantity there needs to be an independent voice for quality. Will that voice now be lost within Whitehall? We will find out. I hope not.”
Boys Smith added that it was a “huge sadness” that the organisation would not be able to set up its planned office in Stoke on Trent. Other staff on its board included classicist architect Robert Adam and AHMM co founder Paul Monaghan.
The body was planning to publish an annual review into place-making and regenerative developments across England which would assess how many councils had adopted design codes, and how successful they were in enabling more housebuilding with public consent.
Boys Smith said: “Will the government still publish [the review]? Is there a risk of them marking their own homework?”
While he admitted the Office for Place did not have a “magic wand” to speed up the delivery of more homes, he said its role was to drive efficiency by promoting “clearer, more visual and more clearly locally popular local policy to permit more homes with more public consent”.
Pennycook said the decision to close the body had been taken by himself and housing secretary Angela Rayner following last month’s autumn Budget and the re-setting of departmental budgets.
He insisted the move did not mean the government was not “downgrading the importance of good design and placemaking, or the role of design coding in improving the quality of development”.
Instead, he promised it would draw the body’s expertise into MHCLG and “fully integrate” good design and placemaking into the government’s planning reforms.
“I also believe that embedding this work within MHCLG will allow experience to be better reflected in decision-making, as well as integrated within an existing delivery team in Homes England already focused on design and placemaking,” Pennycook said.
What Nicholas Boys Smith said on the decision to close the Office for Place
Nye Bevan said that ‘While we shall be judged for a year or two by the number of houses we build….we shall be judged in 10 years’ time by the type of houses we build.’
We set up the Office was Place to be independent, non-partisan and broadly based. For example, when I started the process, the then Chief Executive of the Power to Change fund, and now deputy chief of staff to Sir Keir Starmer, kindly served as my deputy chair.
Naturally I am hugely disappointed by this news and think that it is a mistake or I would not have set it up. In the, correct, dash for quantity there needs to be an independent voice for quality. Will that voice now be lost within Whitehall? We will find out. I hope not.
I guess my job now is to keep asking the questions.
The Office for Place was going to publish an annual review into place-making and beautiful and regenerative development across England. How many councils have visual design codes and pattern books in place? Are they authority-wide? Can they demonstrate that they are locally popular? Are they linked to fast-track development to help us build more homes with public consent? Are the codes making it possible for attractive intensification of existing streets? Above all, is the public’s confidence growing in our ability to create new homes and places without scarring existing neighbourhoods?
Will the government still publish this? Is there a risk of them marking their own homework?
No one disagrees that we are going to need to build many more homes. The most common request from councils is for more staff. This is not surprising given the highly discretionary and inefficient way we have ended up running our planning system. The Office for Place did not have a magic wand to fix this. But the government doesn’t have one of those either. We were designing the Office for Place as a “force multiplier”, helping “move the democracy forward” and work smarter by setting clearer, more visual and more clearly locally popular local policy to permit more homes with more public consent. This means that each individual planning application can be handled more efficiently without losing public good will.
If you like, we were trying to help not just force more development water down the planning pipe but to widen the pipe.
I wish the new government well in their important work. I am delighted that they are keeping important hooks in the planning system for beautiful and popular place-making. But will those hooks be enough without a small body committed to supporting councils to put them into practice with enabling and popular local plans? We are going to find out.
Above all I would like to thank my marvellous board, our expert advisors and the brilliant officials who supported us tirelessly. I am so pleased that they will be able to move to new roles. We also had plans to bring in national expertise to support the regenerative development of our home, Stoke on Trent. It is a huge sadness to me that we will not now be able to put those into action.
I can only apologise to those in the place-making industry that our attempt to create a small, independent and powerful voice for the importance of place within government has hit the buffers. One day we will get there. And the mission to create new places and steward existing places to be happy and healthy, resilient and beautiful is never-ending.
No comments yet