APPG on Wellbeing Economics
Session #4: Planning Policy & Well-being
12th May 2014
The purpose of the meeting was to explore three key questions:
1. How can the planning system support well-being?
2. How far is this in tension with the current focus on the need for planning to support growth?
3. What would need to change for a well-being approach to planning to become a reality?
The expert witnesses were:




Kathy MacEwen, Head of Planning and Enabling, Design Council Cabe
Anna Scott-Marshall, Head of External Affairs, Royal Institute of British Architects
Stephen Joseph, Chief Executive, Campaign for Better Transport
Steve Quartermain, Chief Planner, Department for Communities and Local Government
The following group members were present:
David Lammy MP (chair); Helen Goodman MP; Baroness Claire Tyler; Chris Ruane MP; Lord Richard
Layard; Lord Alan Howarth.
The meeting began with an introduction to the evidence base on planning and well-being from
Saamah Abdallah, Senior Researcher at the New Economics Foundation, followed by a discussion
with the expert witnesses.
Opening presentation
Saamah Abdallah gave a short introduction to the evidence base on planning and well-being,
identifying three key issues:



Social space: social capital is a strong determinant of well-being, and there’s evidence it can
be influenced by planning – for instance, the design of public spaces and buildings can
promote opportunities for social interaction; conversely, security features like high fences
appear to make people feel less safe.
Green space: Urban green space has a positive impact on well-being – this is both
instrumental (e.g. reduced pollution, greater physical activity) and intrinsic (i.e. access to
nature is good for well-being in and of itself). These impacts appear to persist over time,
unlike many other things which boost well-being.
Transport: active transport such as cycling and walking promotes well-being, and there is
some evidence that public transport promotes social cohesion. But we also need to think
about how planning can reduce the need for transport – for instance, if providing green
space means people have to commute further to work or to access services, then that is a
trade-off in well-being terms.
He noted that more traditional objectives of planning policy, like housing stock and economic
development, are of course also important for well-being – so the key question is how we align
these traditional and non-traditional objectives. It was also noted that the planning process can
influence well-being: community involvement in shaping local places can affect people’s feelings
about where they live, as well as producing better outcomes.
Opening remarks from expert witnesses
Kathy MacEwen noted that the planning process should be about creating good quality
environments that foster health and well-being, and that this requires a holistic approach. She
highlighted Design Council Cabe’s ‘Active By Design’ programme, which focusses on how the design
of places and buildings can promote physical activity. The economic cost of failing to take these
factors into account is very high, she argued. Local Plans have a key role to play, and realising that
role will require working across local authorities – not just with the planning team – and with the
private sector.
Anna Scott-Marshall spoke about the results of recent research by RIBA exploring how architects
and planners can create places which promote more incidental physical activity – something clients
and local authorities often do not encourage architects to prioritise. Their research into UK cities
found that housing density and green space were correlated with health outcomes, but that there
were fairly simple design solutions which people said would make them walk more: e.g. safer, more
attractive streets and green spaces. RIBA estimates that implementing these solutions could save
£675m a year through improved public health. It recommends clearer leadership from local
authorities, working with Health and Well-being Boards, through their Local Plans and through
Action Plans to promote physical activity. Architects and developers should also sign up to a
‘responsibility deal’ committing to incorporate these considerations into their schemes.
Stephen Joseph noted that well-being is generally absent from the transport debate, which tends to
focus on mobility rather than access, and reflects a belief that car dependency will continue to rise.
He made three key suggestions for how this situation could be improved:
 Better integration of transport and land-use planning, so that people live nearer to
amenities and it is easier to walk or cycle – the UK’s siloed approach is unusual.
 An overhaul of transport modelling, forecasting and evaluation. DfT currently projects huge
increases in road traffic, so the value of building new roads to reduce projected congestion is
given great weight in benefit-cost ratios – while things like social isolation caused by lack of
public transport, separation of communities by traffic, public space and green space tend to
be ignored.
 Reallocation of transport spending away from big road projects and towards measures to
enhance public space, promote cycling and walking, and improve local public transport.
Steve Quartermain noted that planning has its roots in the health agenda, with early legislation to
deal with poor housing, and that the two are intrinsically linked. He argued that the government was
trying to promote a holistic approach to planning, integrating economic, environmental and social
aspects, and that the importance of health and well-being was reflected in the National Planning
Policy Framework and supporting guidance. Key challenges included:
 Implementation – ensuring these principles translate into Local Plans;
 Breaking down silos both at departmental level, e.g. between planning and health, and at
local level, e.g. between Health & Well-being Boards and planning advisors;
 Building understanding of new opportunities to shape your community through
Neighbourhood Plans – whilst also encouraging ‘wider-than-local’ thinking.
Questions and discussion
David Lammy asked panellists about the provision of adequate car parking space in new residential
developments and on high streets. Stephen Joseph responded that the two issues were distinct:
there was an issue about residential car parking, and car clubs could sometimes be a sensible
solution. In relation to high streets, retailers and planners consistently over-estimate the proportion
of shoppers travelling by car and under-estimate the importance of other modes of transport – and
deregulating parking on high streets does not always have the desired effect. Kathy McEwen agreed
that the issue was complex and that simply providing more car parking was not necessarily the
answer. Steve Quartermain noted that previous efforts to discourage cars in town centres hadn’t
always worked, and that the government’s approach was to provide flexibility for local councils and
communities to decide on an approach that meets their needs.
David Lammy also asked about the problem of housing density, which had been ‘chronically
misjudged’ in the past with the over-use of high-rise buildings. Stephen Joseph noted that car
parking can itself cause density problems as more space is allocated to ‘mobility’ uses, thereby
forcing people to drive more. Kathy McEwen noted that not all high-density housing is high-rise, and
that quality of space was a key issue. Steve Quartermain agreed that high-density housing could still
be high-quality, and noted that low-density developments also pose challenges around land-take –
we need a ‘mixed economy’ of development including both high-density (with some high-rise) and
houses with gardens.
Lord Layard asked if there was a well-being case for repealing green belts and focussing instead on
the provision of high quality green space within walking distance of urban residential areas. Steve
Quartermain responded that green belts were less about quality green space and more a spatial
policy designed to stop settlements from coalescing – the government remains committed to this
policy.
Chris Ruane suggested that a well-being approach to planning could win wide popular support: ONS
data suggests that the British public’s top priorities for their own happiness are things like access to
parks and swimming pools, libraries and museums, and opportunities for physical activity. He also
suggested there was a need for guidance on well-being and planning for non-experts – an ‘idiot’s
guide’ – to help MPs and others engage more effectively with the planning process, acting as a
counterweight to the influence of developers. On high streets, he asked whether we should be
replacing empty shops with social spaces as a way of revitalising the high street?
Anna Scott-Marshall responded that there was scope to reimagine the high street by providing more
public spaces and facilities – but it was important to do this with a long-term view. Current proposals
to replace shops with housing arise from short-term economic concerns and could inadvertently rip
the heart out of communities. Similarly, current concerns around affordability and commercial
viability are leading us to build very small homes, such that lack of space has become a key concern
for people. Kathy McEwen agreed there was a need for accessible guidance on planning and wellbeing and that Cabe’s work could play a role in this. Stephen Joseph referenced new CBT work on
case studies of developments not based around the car, as well as existing work by Sustrans and the
Welsh government.
Baroness Tyler asked about the role of Health and Well-being Boards in combating loneliness and
isolation in older people, and how they could work with planners to make town centres more
inclusive of older people. This was complex and required balancing with other objectives like
discouraging car use: older people with mobility problems are often unable to use public transport,
so inadequate car parking can exclude them and their carers from town centres.
Steve Quartermain agreed that planning for an ageing population was a key challenge, and said
government was engaging with planning advisors and developers about this. There was a need to
overcome silo thinking – recent experiments with locating children’s services and older people’s
accommodation next to each other seemed to have worked well. Anna Scott-Marshall agreed that
there were exciting opportunities to plan developments in a new way, by enabling multigenerational living or building flexibility into housing developments to ensure older people are not
excluded. Kathy McEwen said there was a huge body of research on this issue which needed to be
used more effectively, and that planning and public health bodies needed to work together.
The event was then opened to questions from the floor.
Carol Jahme of the Guardian asked if free public transport was the answer to many well-being
problems? Stephen Joseph responded that there was good evidence that subsidised travel made
older people significantly more active and also made good economic sense. Conversely, social
isolation of older people had been a major impact of recent cuts to public transport, which does not
appear in economic evaluations of transport policy.
A local councillor from Kingston suggested that local authorities faced difficulties in trying to protect
green space and build decent-quality homes – planning applications turned down by the council had
subsequently been approved on appeal. Steve Quartermain responded that the government was
making it easier for local authorities to resist development of garden space, and that the idea of
planning inspectors constantly undermining council decisions was a misconception.
Saamah Abdallah returned to the issue of green belts, suggesting there might be a need for more
research on the effect of quality of green space on well-being, and on the well-being impacts of
communities converging. Impact on ecosystems was also an important consideration, reminding us
that well-being can’t be our only criterion. He also suggested that, rather than just thinking in terms
of how to match rising demand for development in London, we should be thinking about how to
rebalance the economy so that demand could be shifted elsewhere.
Stephen Joseph responded that there was a real danger of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable
development’ becoming a ‘presumption in favour of development’ – any growth is good growth,
regardless of where or how it’s created. The evidence shows this approach can create large costs in
the long run from pollution, poor health etc. Rather than seeing planning as constraining growth by
stopping development, we should recognise that we need a strong planning system to enable good
development and give investors certainty; policies like green belts which set boundaries are part of
this, since they encourage urban regeneration rather than greenfield development.
Helen Goodman asked about the other end of the age spectrum, including planning for play space
and in ways that support teenagers to learn independence. She also noted the divergence between
London and the rest of the country in terms of how easy it is to live sustainably, due to lowerfootprint housing and good public transport. To what extent did panellists think this was due to the
fact that planning and transport are dealt with by the same authority? If we want integrated
decision-making, do we need unified systems rather than just getting existing bodies to work
together?
Kathy McEwen agreed there was divergence but said that many cities outside London have the same
potential to encourage walking and cycling. There was a need to improve public understanding of
the implications of planning for building sustainable communities, and a breadth of solutions that
work for all ages and places. Anna Scott-Marshall and Stephen Joseph agreed that transport and
planning would benefit from having more shared objectives.
Steve Quartermain suggested the problem was not the planning system but its application. Helen
Goodman asked if this meant the solution was recruiting and training good people to the planning
profession? Steve Quartermain suggested that it was rather about opening up the planning system
to a wider range of voices: you don’t have to be a planner to understand issues of social capital or
well-being.
Ella Matheson (Intuitive Design) asked about the role of central government planning departments
in the system, and how they could become more of a force for innovation and change. Steve
Quartermain questioned the idea that planning is the preserve of experts, saying that the
government was committed to demystifying the process through things like neighbourhood planning
– but that plans must be realistic and economically viable. Kathy McEwen agreed processes for
innovation were important, and that good ideas come from many different places: the planning
system should facilitate innovation led by communities and developers, rather than necessarily
being the source of ideas itself.