Comment
Placemaking takes centre stage in the NPPF proposals
Placemaking and design are rightly at the forefront of the proposals in the NPPF consultation which closed in March 2026. The draft document provides a real opportunity for emphasis to be placed on great design, but for this to work in practice policy needs further nuance, clarity, flexibility and proportionate application. Our consultation response was submitted last month and below our Design team summarise our thoughts and some of our responses.
The need for nuance in the approach to density
A more nuanced approach to density is essential if planning policy is to support truly sustainable placemaking. While setting minimum densities around well-connected transport nodes is a logical way to optimise land use and reduce car dependency, density should not be treated as a blunt metric. Instead, it must be aligned with context, design quality, and the lived experience of place. The concept of “appropriate density,” as referenced in national guidance, offers a more flexible and effective framework - one that recognises the importance of built form, local character, and environmental constraints. In rural or edge-of-settlement locations, particularly near smaller railway stations, applying uniform thresholds such as 40 or 50 dwellings per hectare (dph) risks producing schemes that feel out of scale or incongruous.
A density of 40 dph can accommodate a wide range of housing types and often strikes a reasonable balance. By contrast, 50 dph frequently implies a step change in built form that may not be suitable in all contexts, particularly where heritage or landscape sensitivities are present. For this reason, a blanket refusal of schemes that fall below minimum density thresholds is difficult to justify. Greater flexibility - allowing for exceptions where design, environmental, or heritage considerations warrant it - would lead to better outcomes.
Balancing high-level design principles with practical implementation
Within the draft NPPF, this emphasis on quality over metrics is echoed in the broader focus on design and placemaking. Policies that prioritise well-designed, connected, and legible environments are welcome, particularly where they promote a co-ordinated approach to urban form, movement networks, and public realm. However, there remains a gap between high-level design principles and their practical implementation. Greater clarity is needed on how local plans can translate these ambitions into measurable and deliverable outcomes. The integration of design codes, frameworks, and place-based assessments into plan-making would help reduce ambiguity and ensure consistency in decision-making.
Addressing equity and inclusion
High-quality placemaking should also address issues of equity and inclusion. Designing places that are safe, accessible, and welcoming to all - including women and girls - requires more than technical compliance. It demands a conscious effort to understand diverse experiences and embed them into the planning process, as well as prioritising pedestrians and cyclists over vehicles within the movement hierarchy. Incorporating gender-sensitive approaches - alongside addressing the needs of all individuals, including those with disabilities, both visible and non-visible - into policy would represent a meaningful step toward creating environments where everyone can participate fully and confidently in public life. Our successful ‘Made for Me’ submission for the 2024 ‘Reimagine London’ competition demonstrates how places can be made safe, accessible and inclusive.
The application of design tools and the role of context
Design tools such as codes and guides have an important role to play in achieving these ambitions, but they must be applied proportionately. Overly rigid or burdensome requirements risk stifling innovation and undermining deliverability. Clearer guidance on how these tools interact with masterplans, planning applications, and local context would ensure they support, rather than hinder, good design.
Finally, the principle of responding to context remains fundamental. Development should not only respect local character but also enhance it, balancing continuity with innovation. Clearer guidance on assessing context and measuring outcomes - such as permeability, active frontages, and public realm quality - would strengthen this objective. Similarly, design review processes can add real value when used early, constructively and at the right level of detail, but must avoid becoming procedural formalities. When embedded meaningfully into the evolution of schemes, they can help ensure that development delivers places that are not only efficient, but also distinctive, inclusive, and enduring.
For more information on what the proposed NPPF amends could mean for design and placemaking please contact Debbie Clutton.
7 April 2026