Will Whitehall’s lofty aspirations for good design founder on the rocks of under-resourced planning departments?

Unveiling planning reform is becoming a bit of a Christmas tradition. December 2025 marked the third year in a row that the government unwrapped yet another National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), its rulebook for planning and development in England.

This version certainly brought developers some festive cheer. It is proudly pro-building, with a default approval stance for schemes near transport hubs, streamlined decision-making, more delegated planning powers to speed approvals, limits on councils adding extra demands beyond national standards, and exemptions such as biodiversity requirements being eased for smaller sites to cut costs.

But, in the headlong dash to hit housing targets, is Steve Reed, the secretary of state for housing, in danger of treating local democracy as collateral damage? And does this latest reboot of the NPPF – bolstered by the loosening of constraints in the Planning and Infrastructure Act – genuinely weigh real community concerns, or simply clear the way for building anything that is able to stand upright?

The government insists that there are still strong protections for good design. The new NPPF again talks about design quality and placemaking, including visual quality. It champions community engagement, design review panels and design codes.

There is evidence that, even when schemes look respectable in principle, corners are cut once they reach site – and those supposedly minor changes somehow go unchallenged

Planners are encouraged to ask sensible questions: does the development create a pleasant place to live? Will it age gracefully? Or is it a cheap-and-cheerful box destined to deteriorate?

Alongside this will sit updated design and placemaking guidance which will pull together previous design documents into a single reference point when it is published in the coming weeks. On paper, at least, it all sounds encouraging.

But can we really be confident that these carefully crafted ideas from Whitehall filter neatly into reality in district planning departments? I suspect not – they are after all not manadated and councils are under so much pressure.

In my own district, housing targets are more than three times what actually gets built in a typical year. Developers are battling squeezed margins and viability challenges.

On top of that, there is evidence that, even when schemes look respectable in principle, corners are cut once they reach site – and those supposedly minor changes somehow go unchallenged.

I do not doubt that local planners and councillors are, broadly speaking, well intentioned. Many simply lack the resources, confidence or specialist design knowledge to champion excellence consistently

Perhaps I am coloured by local experience. Good architecture too often means a kind of suburban Greek revival cosplay – houses with absurdly oversized columns stuck on like props from a pantomime. At the other end of the spectrum, as the council scrambles to meet housing numbers, we have been handed what feels like a 100-unit residential battleship plonked unceremoniously in the town centre.

Aside from the odd elegant private house and some handsome additions to a well-funded public school, the town is largely a contemporary architecture desert. I am not expecting Stirling Prize winners on every corner – but the occasional Housing Design Award would be nice.

I do not doubt that local planners and councillors are, broadly speaking, well intentioned. Many simply lack the resources, confidence or specialist design knowledge to champion excellence consistently. There are, however, encouraging exceptions.

Winchester City Council has developed its own design codes derived from the National Model Design Code, helping to ensure new developments are better designed, more context-sensitive and sympathetic to local character. And, as David Birkbeck, chief executive of Design for Homes, points out, judging the Housing Design Awards over the past 20 years has shown real progress, with far more strong contenders now than in previous decades.

>> Also read: Can Steve Reed save Christmas with his planning reforms?

Birkbeck also makes an important point: the leap from perfectly adequate to genuinely excellent often comes down to money. It may depend on whether the land deal left a developer some breathing space to invest in landscaping and quality materials. Or whether the scheme is being delivered by a not-for-profit organisation not beholden to shareholders demanding a 20-30% return.

In some places, it is councils themselves who raise the bar. Cambridge, for example, used higher environmental standards and 40% affordable housing requirements as a spur rather than a burden – helping to shape the innovative and award-winning development at Great Kneighton.

So, yes, the NPPF makes polite noises about good design and landscaping. But delivery remains patchy for a host of reasons.

We all like to talk about tree-lined avenues – but who pays for maintaining them? We all say we want development that respects scale and context – but councils under pressure end up accepting bulk.

Wanting a say in what gets built – and lacking confidence that councils can consistently tell the difference between thoughtful architecture and lazy design – should not automatically earn people the label of nimby

It is hard not to feel nostalgic for the days of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, when Blair-era Britain treated design quality as a national mission rather than a nice to have.

We desperately need new homes, and many will inevitably be denser and taller than what people are used to. But wanting a say in what gets built – and lacking confidence that councils can consistently tell the difference between thoughtful architecture and lazy design – should not automatically earn people the label of nimby.

At best, one hopes that Whitehall’s lofty aspirations for good design do eventually trickle down into town halls, supported by properly resourced planning departments, braver design reviews, credible design codes, inspirational developers and genuinely engaged communities.

Hope, admittedly, is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting there, but hey, it’s a new year.

Denise Chevin is a writer and policy advisor in the built environment, utilities and technology. She is the former editor of Building and Housing Today