By Charles Goode
As I write from my office, which is my shed in the garden to make the most of the lovely spring weather, the government’s and the public’s attention is rightly on reducing the infection and death rate from the virus. However, in the same way that Abercrombie and others sought to plan post-war Britain in the midst of WWII, it is important to consider how both planning/housing policy and the built environment profession could change post-coronavirus.
This blog offers some potential insights which perhaps raise more questions than answers but these are still pressing and poignant issues to consider. One thing is clear, planners and the planning/built environment profession (should) remain vital in a post-coronavirus world.
Pandemics and Planning: History
Although it is difficult to establish direct causation between progress in planning and pandemics, especially tracing the impacts of the Black Death when there was hardly any state control over the built environment, the Great Plague of London in 1665 followed by the Great Fire in 1666 clearly had an important impact on the more spacious rebuilding of the city as designed by Christopher Wren and others (Hall, 1998; Ogborn, 1998). Likewise, WWI and the ‘Spanish’ Flu of 1918-19, clearly informed Tudor Walter’s Report (1918) and subsequent Addison Act of 1919, which resulted in much more spacious space standards for new social and private housing (Hall, 2014).
The fascinating question is whether there may be a similar paradigm shift within planning post coronavirus? However, it is important to stress that these shifts often result from a ‘conjunctional’ crises or combination of events, like the Great Fire alongside the Plague, and WWI which prompted
a desire to build ‘homes fit for heroes’ alongside Spanish Flu (Peck and Tickell, 2012, p. 245; Inch and Shepherd, 2019, p. 1). In other words, change is not always inevitable, linear or teleological (one directional) although the culture in which shifts take place is very important.
Immediate changes: Planning policy and permitted development
Permitted development rights have already been introduced for the NHS and there maybe wider temporary rights introduced relating to vital institutions and industries, such as care homes, undertakers and key factories (e.g. those producing ventilators), especially if the virus persists with a second wave.
Short(er) term changes to planning and prosperity: Housing and high streets
Another priority, as the lockdown begins to lift, is the completion of existing development sites although it remains to be seen how strongly the house-building industry recovers. One thing is clear, there is still a housing crisis and housing will probably remain a political priority. In terms of the High Street, there has clearly been a huge (further) shift to online retail and, with the social distancing measures likely to continue for some months, it is unlikely that there will be a swift retail revival, especially for pubs, restaurants and cafes, therefore exacerbating the High Street’s decline. This means that planning for recovery and economic prosperity will probably become more important.
Indeed, with widespread job losses resulting from coronavirus and the lockdown, there will be more pressure on local authorities to allocate and approve the expansion of businesses and employment where the demand arises(as seen in Worcester City Council’s approval at a virtual planning committee I recently listened to (Barnett, 2020b) of a new Lidl store).
Spatially, given the shift of the economy towards online (and maybe an increase in industrial production due to the disruption to international
trade), this may result in warehouses and factories expanding, which are often located on the periphery of conurbations and at strategic transport locations. Alongside the speed and scale of the recovery of the house-building industry, these economic changes will have an important impact on the planning consultancy industry but, during this crisis, it has become apparent that public sector planners are ‘essential’ and may get enhanced powers to plan for economic recovery.
Medium and longer term: Planners, property and place
The further we look into the future, the more difficult it is to predict but coronavirus may have important implications for space standards for housing and green space, despite the pressing housing crisis. Firstly, the lockdown has demonstrated the necessity for each household to have enough domestic space, natural light and personal outdoor space, such as a balcony. I am so thankful for the garden – it must have been so difficult for people living in homes through lockdown without gardens.
Secondly, although the notion of ‘home working’ has been critiqued conceptually as
restricted to professional workers compared to the millions of manual workers, the virus may have an impact on the spatial configuration of homes, especially flats. Indeed, the preference has been for
‘open plan’ but demand for a discrete space, like an office/living room often seen in Victorian homes, may increase.
Thirdly, having a garden or nearby green space has emerged as extremely important, as has been widely acknowledged by experts for many years (Salazar and Menéndez, 2007; Gidlow and Ellis, 2011), especially when the parks were threatened with closure during the lockdown.
This could all have important ramifications for Permitted Development Rights of office buildings into residential which often have a terrible lack of outdoor amenity space (Clifford et al.,2018, 2019). Reflecting on these changes in my own area of research, Green Belts clearly rely on urban densification of existing urban land so accusations of ‘people or town cramming’ now have to be seriously acknowledged (for example: Evans, 1991; Madeddu et al., 2015), especially as the already strong societal preference for homes with gardens may increase through the growth in home working and worries about another lockdown.
If space standards are introduced, it maybe that the scale and density of urban development is also reduced potentially putting more pressure on the Green Belt. Conversely, as cities have been most affected by the virus, the popularity of urban living, combined with more flexible home working, may reduce development pressure in cities.
Indeed, if the daily ‘tidal flow’ of commuters is reduced, the ‘leapfrogging’ of development also becomes less problematic, but this, in turn, could have important implications for the traditional ‘CBD’ (Central Business District), including demand for office space, retail and ancillary services. More broadly, this could have ramifications for cities benefiting from ‘agglomeration’ economics – the co-location of people and industry – and their role as the engines of the global economy (Glaeser, 2011).
Finally, in terms of the planning/built environment profession, the trend towards home working, which has been more widely adopted in the public sector, may accelerate and become more widespread in the private sector. The planning process is clearly becoming more digitised, including
the consultation and planning committee process and, if the Civic Voice review finds these changes are successful (Edgar, 2020), this may lead to permanent changes in planning process. Although I missed ‘seeing’ the councilors at Worcester’s planning committee, I thought the virtual format
worked very well and this was echoed by positive commentary in the local press (Barnett, 2020a).
Conclusion: ‘Make no little plans’
Of course, this blog is just my personal views on how things may change. However, perhaps we all need to return more to the vision and ambition of the founding fathers of the planning system/Victorian Housing/Public Health Acts, like Howard and Unwin. Hopefully, one result will be
that we have more ambitious, strategic plans, like Abercrombie’s Greater London Plan and that we follow Daniel Burnham’s advice to make ‘no little plans’ (UK 2070 Commission, 2020, p. 1)!
About the Author
Charles Goode is completing his ESRC funded PhD on the Green Belt and the housing crisis. His research has focused on regional Green Belts, especially the West Midlands, and the views of planners through 73 interviews with planning practitioners. He has written an academic-practitioner paper on the governance and geography of Green Belts (https://bit.ly/36gocWL) and enjoys writing blogs (e.g. https://bit.ly/3gbH3qw), research summaries and conference reports for the RTPI.
Many of the ideas for this blog came from a discussion with other planners doing PhDs including Lubaina Mirza, Charlotte Morphet, Victoria Pinoncély, Deborah Bloomfield, Catherine Queen and Simon Shtebunaev. Charles greatly appreciated the discussion, which inspired him to write the blog
and gratefully acknowledges both the range and depth of ideas discussed.
Article first published on the RTPI website on 15/05/2020.
Barnett, C. (2020a) FAIR POINT: Will virtual council meetings become the new normal after
lockdown?, Worcester News. Available at: https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/18407197.fairpoint-will-virtual-council-meetings-become-new-normal-lockdown/ (Accessed: 28 April 2020).
Barnett, C. (2020b) Lidl to open its third supermarket in Worcester after plans backed, Worcester
News. Available at: https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/18402544.lidl-open-third-supermarketworcester-plans-backed/ (Accessed: 28 April 2020).
Clifford, B. et al. (2018) Assessing the impacts of extending permitted development rights to officeto-residential change of use in England, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Available at:
(Accessed: 12 May 2020).
Clifford, B. et al. (2019) Understanding the impacts of deregulation in planning: Turning offices into
homes? London: Palgrave.
Edgar, L. (2020) Community groups invited to monitor public participation in planning, The Planner.
Available at: https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/community-groups-invited-to-monitor-publicparticipation-in-planning (Accessed: 15 April 2020).
Evans, A. W. (1991) ‘“Rabbit Hutches on Postage Stamps”: Planning, Development and Political
Economy’, Urban Studies, 28(6), pp. 853–870.
Gidlow, C. J. and Ellis, N. J. (2011) ‘Neighbourhood green space in deprived urban communities:
Issues and barriers to use’, Local Environment, 16(10), pp. 989–1002.
Glaeser, E. (2011) ‘Cities, productivity, and quality of life’, Science, 333(6042), pp. 592–594.
Hall, P. (1998) Cities in Civilization. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hall, P. (2014) Cities of tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and design since 1880.
Third. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Inch, A. and Shepherd, E. (2019) ‘Thinking conjuncturally about ideology, housing and English
planning’, Planning Theory, 19(1), pp. 1–21.
Madeddu, M., Gallent, N. and Mace, A. (2015) ‘Space in new homes: delivering functionality and
liveability through regulation or design innovation?’, Town Planning Review, 86(1), pp. 73–95.
Ogborn, M. (1998) Spaces of Modernity: London’s Geographies 1680-1780. New York: The Guildford
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2012) ‘Apparitions of neoliberalism: Revisiting “Jungle law breaks out”’, Area,
44(2), pp. 245–249.
Salazar, S. and Menéndez, L. (2007) ‘Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does
proximity matter?’, Land Use Policy, 24, pp. 296–305.
UK 2070 Commission (2020) ‘Make No Little Plans’: Acting at Scale for a Fairer and Stronger Future.
Available at: http://uk2070.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/UK2070-FINAL-REPORT.pdf
(Accessed: 15 April 2020).