The issues here seem to be a mix of:
- A failure on the part of developers and planning departments to properly consult or pick out possible faults at an early stage – possibly as a result of a mix of budget cuts to local planning departments and more expert advice being available to developers (such as through private planning consultancies).
- Strict boundaries and timescales in which planning applications need to be decided and (as suggested by a previous Senedd Committee) an emphasis on deciding whether an application is “bad enough to refuse” than “good enough to approve” (though more often or not the situation is somewhere in the middle).
- Architecture that prioritises value for money and speed of construction over good design, but still fits with an LDP or masterplan and would be difficult to reject on planning grounds.
We’ve already gone some way to fixing the first issue with the introduction of pre-application consultations. The problem is they’re not promoted very well (perhaps deliberately) and you often have to actively look for them.
The pre-application process ought to flag up potential issues early on – by the public, councillors and planning officers – and carry weight in decisions on the planning applications themselves; failing to take into account recommendations from a consultation without a good reason should, for example, lead to grounds for refusal.
Maybe there’s an opportunity to simplify the planning process – as recommended by a committee during the Fifth Senedd – but nobody has set out how it can be simplified and it could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. Welsh planning law will eventually be brought together into a single code as part of the Legislation Act 2019, but that’s years away.
It wouldn’t hurt for planning committee members to undertake some form of basic architectural training – if they don’t already – or training in “what makes a good development”. This would be so they can properly construct arguments around things like livability, design and layout which won’t be so easily dismissed and be a bit more sophisticated than NIMBYism.
There may be an argument that the most complex planning applications should be debated in chunks over several planning committee meetings – with the least controversial elements agreed in principle early on and more controversial elements discussed in detail at a later stage before a final decision. So it would be more like an inquiry than just one item of business discussed in one session.
Lifting minimum standards in architecture would require powers Wales doesn’t currently have.
Building regulations are generally devolved with a few exceptions. Most of the problems relating to architecture, materials and project management are likely down to developers cost-cutting than devolution.
As hinted, council planning departments have seen their budgets halved since 2008-09, resulting in a loss of skills; working as private planning consultants is often far more lucrative than working in a local planning authority. It’s likely to be a similar story for local authority building inspections.
Not all new-build developments are crap and keeping costs down isn’t a bad thing in itself (modular construction is starting to become fashionable, for example).
It only becomes a problem when it’s at the expense of good design and good project management which affects the quality of workmanship (i.e. expecting contractors to do too much in too little time with poor materials). Then these developments become unpleasant places to live or be around, not just to look at.
Governments will also need to take their share of the blame if they push to build too much in too little space too quickly (though density shouldn’t be seen as a problem in itself). That leads to the sorts of problems crap developments cause because it tends to favour big volume builders and speculative developers who have their minds fixed on profit margins.
It’s impossible to plan a development that will please everyone – full stop. Even supposed crap developments serve a purpose or play a part in meeting government targets or alike. They will always exist, but it wouldn’t hurt to learn from mistakes.
Over to you, what do you think? What can be done to improve things?
