A year in the making, the work of more than 60 people, cost to the Treasury of more than £300m a year. Was the Urban Task Force’s final report worth the wait?

John Assael, Managing director, Assael Architecture

This is the best and certainly the most comprehensive report ever produced on Britain’s urban crisis. People who want to be critical will say that there were too many recommendations. One commentator said it was a bit “double album”. OK, but it’s the journalists and politicians who should extract the headlines. Lord Rogers can’t be faulted for giving anyone who cares to read the report a complete route map. It is essential that we are optimistic about what we can achieve. Pasqual Maragall, former mayor of Barcelona, in his Royal Gold Medal speech said about London, and by inference the rest of the UK: “When a city has gone through years of non-doing and passivity, ideas about its future mature and can be transformed into a fruitful, forceful and purposeful attitude when the necessary political conditions to take action come into play. “This, I believe, is the origin of the demanding optimism of our architects that began to overflow in 1980 onto the streets and squares of Barcelona. And this, I am convinced, is the moment London and its politicians, architects and social workers in general are entering into.” This inspiration of Barcelona is there for us to draw on. The same “demanding optimism” is evident in HTA Architects’ principled stand to preserve the vision behind Greenwich Millennium Village. So, where do we start? Those who share expertise in urban design and regeneration must first accept what lay people, non-experts, have known for years - that there is precious little common-sense in the rules and regulations governing the system we are experts in. To get common-sense back into the system will be the first task of those who must draft the new overarching PPG that Lord Rogers rightly calls for, to direct the entire planning system towards his goals. In the meantime, what is the task that the rest of us face in our day-to-day work? It is to talk common-sense to all the people we deal with in local government and other agencies. It is time to jettison those suburban standards in out-of-date UDPs like the BRE Site Layout Planning for Sunlight and Daylight which was never intended for urban areas, and PPG 24 with its crude acoustic classifications which more often than not outlaw residential development on brownfield sites. Ditto the out-of-date parking standards which still exist, despite government guidance, giving ammunition to planning committee members swayed by local politics rather than solving the urban crisis. The need to raise density has been put high on the agenda for the debate within the planning system. Planners could do everyone a favour by trading higher density for good design, with more emphasis on the skill of the urban designer and the use of integrated spatial masterplanning, rather than the two-dimensional zoning plans backed up by manuals and controls which have clearly failed to deliver attractive and exciting urban living in towns and cities.

Wendy Shillam, Partner, Shillam & Smith Architects

It is what a lot of people have been saying for a long time. It is good that it has now been said by someone who has the ear of Government. It deals with the three key issues: scrapping maximum density, transportation and parking, and land use. Demonstration projects are a good way forward, but I don’t agree with competitions. Urban design is far too complex to be dealt with in a quick-hit competition. You end up with pretty buildings, not good urban design. Our job would be made easier if the Government got down off the fence. The concern is, is it a vote winner?

Keith Lovelock, Chief executive, McCarthy & Stone

We are pleased with the report, which we believe supports our approach to high density developments in urban locations. In particular we welcome, in its words, “the priority to make the planning system operate more flexibly in securing urban renaissance objectives.” We also welcome the proposal to produce dedicated planning policy guidance to support the drive for an urban renaissance. The recommendation to “discourage local authorities from using density and overdevelopment as reasons for refusing planning permission” will help speed up the planning process and avoid unnecessary and costly public inquiries.

Robert Millar, Managing director, CALA Homes (South)

On the positive side it sets a vision and provides a framework for improving urban environments, but to be successful it requires clear priorities to be identified with specific programmes for action within given timescales. Perhaps its greatest failing is that it doesn’t recognise peoples’ needs and aspirations. It is not asking people where they want to live but is dictating that they will live in high-density environments. In a market economy we must provide the type of housing that people actually want. People will only be attracted to towns and cities if they have the amenities to go with it - packed in like sardines will require some culture change. The containment of urban England is the underlying thrust. Yet dramatic improvement in agricultural productivity results in an increasing amount of land being set aside. It is therefore difficult to understand the continuing obsession to cram everyone into towns with no, or at least tiny, gardens and inadequate parks and open space. Development on urban fringes is justified provided sustainability criteria can be met. Meanwhile government housing policy is confused. Structure Plan authorities are in conflict with government over housing provision numbers, local plans are delayed, while PPG 3 ignores the practical aspect of bringing housing land forward. All this and now Towards an Urban Renaissance are confusing the arguments and providing an excuse for a wait and see attitude. When is planning going to happen? The reality is that at the sharp end there is now the greatest shortage of housing land since the war, land prices are exceeding the boom of the 1980s and house prices are increasing to such an extent that the market is becoming less accessible. This in turn creates the need for even more social housing to redress the balance. To rely on urban capacity studies from under-resourced local authorities and to view brownfield development with excessive densities as the saviour is too simplistic. It is of course essential to maximise the use of all land, whether brownfield or otherwise, but this must have regard to market requirements. There is much debate and convincing to be done if this “environmentalist” approach is to be adopted by the British culture and the real concern is that a policy vacuum appears whereby planning is only achieved through appeal procedures.

Alan Cosh, Land and planning director, Wates Built Homes

It is brave of them to say that the Government’s target to build 60% of new homes won’t be met, but even their estimate of how many homes can be built on brownfield sites cannot be substantiated. Their estimate that there will be 1.5 million windfall sites is huge. This and PPG3 are orientated towards recycling land, but in the South East only 39% of the additional homes required by 2021 are likely to be able to go on brown land. In the South East other sustainable options have got to be looked at, like expanding existing settlements, and not a great deal is being said about that. Is Rogers right in assuming that people will want to go back to the cities? At the end of the day it will be market led. But I welcome the report’s recommendation on relooking at planning applications not taken up for employment. That is a get out of jail ticket that local authorities play.

Charmaine Young, Director, St George Urban Regeneration

It is good to see a focus and debate on urban regeneration and I’m pleased to see a number of the recommendations. I like the idea of urban regeneration companies. The worry is the planning process. It is already elongated and by adding additional levels they could slow it down. The report creates a number of levels of potential bureaucracy, and in London we are already getting another layer with the mayor. They have not given strong enough support for mixed use development. By retaining planning zones they are suppressing regeneration. The provinces need a more strategic view to urban regeneration than London. There is no point in building homes in the urban centre if it causes abandonment elsewhere. The question is - will the report’s recommendations result in displacement?