Planning beyond growth: Restoring our environment while rebuilding Britain by Landscape, the journal of the Landscape Institute

Extraordinary for Landscape Architects

Product: Cliffhanger Terraces Project: Seattle, United States Architect: Hewitt Landscape Architecture

Planning beyond growth

Since the general election, the UK’s planning system has been eagerly positioned front and centre of the Labour government’s ambition to drive economic growth through the development of new housing and infrastructure.

In the rhetoric across government, industry and the public can be found a tension between economic growth and environmental sustainability: How can we ‘get Britain building’ in such a way that drives green growth and delivers the homes we desperately need, while also addressing the very real challenges we face in climate change, biodiversity loss, and public health?

“By taking a landscape-led approach,” says Ian Phillips CMLI MRTPI (p8) in his introduction to the issue – and this is the premise on which much of what follows is built.

We present, and critique, emerging government policy seeking to integrate nature into development and make better use of our land, including contributions from the Better Planning Coalition (p14), Natural England (p20), and the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (p44). We focus on the peri-urban edges where the most impactful projects could manifest, from the newly designated ‘grey belt’ (p52) to new towns (p62), and gain perspectives from across the devolved nations (p49). We highlight the ongoing necessity of vital landscape policy instruments such as Biodiversity Net Gain (p38), sustainable drainage systems (p40),

and Landscape Character Assessment (p56), and highlight the public sector skills gap that could compromise their effectiveness (p33). As well as looking at what all of this means on the ground with case studies from the north and south of England (pp24,28), we also bring you the latest from the Landscape Institute, with news on our Standing Committees (p67), and a look ahead to our new corporate strategy (p70).

With nature having been unfairly pitched as the blocker to development and growth, this edition of the Journal seeks to reestablish it as the enabler, and very foundation, of long-term social, economic and environmental value. As LI Director of Policy & Public Affairs, Belinda Gordon, points out: ‘LI members are the ones who can cross this divide’ (p12).

Josh Cunningham Managing editor

PUBLISHER

Darkhorse Design Ltd

T (0)20 7323 1931 darkhorsedesign.co.uk studio@darkhorsedesign.co.uk

EDITORIAL ADVISORY PANEL

Saira Ali FLI, Team Leader, Landscape, Design and Conservation, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

Stella Bland, Head of Communications, LDA Design

Marc Tomes CMLI, Director, Allen Scott Landscape Architecture

Sandeep Menon, Landscape Architect and University Tutor, Manchester Metropolitan University

Peter Sheard CMLI, Landscape Architect

Jaideep Warya CMLI, Landscape Architect, Allies and Morrison

Jane Findlay PPLI & FLI, Director FIRA Landscape Architects

LANDSCAPE INSTITUTE

Managing Editor and PR & Communications

Manager: Josh Cunningham josh.cunningham@landscapeinstitute.org

Technical Copy Editor: Romy Rawlings FLI

Proof Reader: Johanna Robinson

President: Carolin Göhler FLI

CEO: Rob Hughes

Head of Marketing, Communications and Events: Neelam Sheemar

Director of Policy & Public Affairs: Belinda Gordon

Landscapeinstitute.org

@talklandscape landscapeinstitute landscapeinstituteUK

Print or online?

Landscape is available to members both online and in print. If you want to receive a print version, please register your interest online at: my.landscapeinstitute.org

from

(Environmental

and Audit Scheme) certified manufacturers to ensure responsible printing.

The views expressed in this journal are those of the contributors and advertisers and not necessarily those of the Landscape Institute, Darkhorse or the Editorial Advisory Panel. While every effort has been made to check the accuracy and validity of the information given in this publication, neither the Institute nor the Publisher accepts any responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, for any errors or omissions that it may contain, or for any misunderstandings arising from it. Landscape is the official journal of the Landscape Institute, ISSN: 1742–2914

Southgates masterplan. © BDP

The new planning system should recognise that economic growth should be delivered by working alongside communities and landscapes to maximise benefits to the environment, health and the economy.

Cllr Alex Ross-Shaw, Portfolio Holder – Regeneration, Planning & Transport at Bradford Council Find out more on page 24

The Better Planning Coalition takes stock of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lessons from Bradford Natural England Landscape solutions

How to meet the growth agenda while supporting nature recovery

Government nature advisor sets out the importance of Local Nature Recovery Strategies

Building for growth, planning for nature in one of the UK’s most rapidly expanding cities

FEATURES

Clearer guidance is needed to enhance biodiversity The foundations

How the government’s ‘grey belt’ proposals underline a tension between growth and nature

Key characteristics

Local planning authorities must prioritise Landscape Character Assessment to shape positive change

What can the history of new towns tell us about building such ambitious projects today?

Learnings from the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act

All voices must be heard

What impact will planning reforms have on the role of communities in shaping new development?

Introducing the LI’s four new Standing Committees, putting members at the heart of our work

President Carolin Göhler FLI looks ahead to a new corporate strategy for people, place and nature

Landscape solutions

Built development doesn’t need to come at the cost of the environment and local places. By taking a landscape-led approach, the government can successfully meet its growth agenda while supporting nature recovery and high-quality, sustainable design.

1. The Southgates masterplan creates a vibrant gateway around the Grade I-listed Southgates in King’s Lynn.

¹ https://labour.org.uk/ missions/

² https://labour.org.uk/ plan-for-change/

³ https://www.gov.

uk/government/ publications/uks-2035nationally-determinedcontribution-ndcemissions-reductiontarget-under-the-parisagreement

⁴ https://jncc. gov.uk/our-work/ uk-biodiversityframework/

⁵ https://stateofnature. org.uk/

⁶ The healing power of landscape, Landscape, the journal of the Landscape Institute, Winter 2024

⁷ https://www. landscapeinstitute.org/ policy/policy-focus/

⁸ https://www.gov.

uk/government/ publications/letterfrom-the-deputyprime-minister-to-localauthorities-playingyour-part-in-buildingthe-homes-we-need

Ian

CMLI MRTPI

A fresh wave of planning reform is unfolding in the UK under a new government, driven by an acute housing crisis, persistent economic stagnation, the Labour Party’s electoral mandate to build more homes and create more jobs and the political imperative for the new government to make swift progress on key domestic priorities.

Labour’s pathway to government was forged on a mission to “kickstart economic growth… rebuild Britain, support good jobs, unlock investment, and improve living standards across the country”.¹ After a landslide victory in summer 2024, ministers soon began to implement a ‘Plan for Change’² that included a commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes in England during the Parliament and to approve at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects. Such a plan has significant implications for landscape, with reforms now set to reshape how development is planned, delivered and integrated into the wider built and natural environments.

Running in parallel to the government’s growth agenda are the interrelated challenges the UK faces in addressing climate change, biodiversity loss, and public health. Under the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and halting nature’s decline.3, 4 These commitments are set against the sobering reality that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,⁵ and its National Health Service is under increasing strain from the health consequences of poor-quality living conditions, characterised by air and water pollution, inadequate resilience to climate change and limited access to nature and green space.⁶

This convergence of pressures presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to align

housing and economic objectives with those on climate, biodiversity and public health, to deliver long-term, sustainable value for people, place and nature. In a context where speed and delivery are being prioritised, it is a legitimate concern that both established and current environmental considerations may well be undermined.

This should not be permitted –especially when there is a way forward that enables development and nature to thrive together. The fundamental purpose of the planning system has always been to balance the broader interests of the public against the narrower focus of the developer. The system has long recognised the importance of landscape planning, design and management in addressing and reconciling these competing priorities and applying this approach directly to development. By recognising the role of landscape treatment as a multifunctional resource, and not merely as an aesthetic feature, such an approach ensures that land use change can deliver concurrent social, economic and environmental value. It’s about bringing the issues that currently run in parallel together to provide integrated solutions.

The Landscape Institute (LI) sees nature-based solutions as fundamental to this vision, and to the long-term

health, sustainability and value of built development. A landscape-led, nature-based approach creates sustainable, liveable, climate-resilient and attractive places. It makes good use of natural capital, integrates biodiversity and water management, improves health outcomes and supports economic growth. This was the vision we set out in 2024 in our ‘Recommendations for the next UK government; a landscape policy agenda for people, place and nature’.⁷

Within three weeks of entering government, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, had launched an overhaul of the planning system in England, beginning with an updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Further reforms included the introduction of new Spatial Development Strategies and new methodology for setting mandatory housing targets, with stronger emphasis on delivering social and affordable homes. Also included was a commitment to reviewing the green belt and the introduction of a new concept of ‘grey belt’ land alongside brownfield land, with local authorities expected to release appropriate land to meet housing and commercial needs. Additional measures were given to the development of ‘growth-supporting infrastructure’,⁸ including transport,

Phillips

Climate-ready Edinburgh SuDS pond and wildflower meadow. LI Awards winner 2023.

Atkins

energy and data networks. Further reforms, including a national housing strategy, a series of new towns, changes to Environmental Impact Assessments and the flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, with its novel proposals for Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs), are also set to play a key role.

From a planning policy perspective, these reforms have far-reaching implications for how landscape is incorporated into the development process. The updated NPPF,⁹ for example, seeks to integrate some environmental priorities at the national level, but much depends on how policy is implemented at regional and local levels. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill10 introduces significant changes, underpinned by new policy instruments such as Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs), while the Development and Nature Recovery working paper11 further proposes the establishment of a Nature Development Fund (NDF) that aims to finance nature restoration in tandem with new development. EDPs, managed by Natural England, are proposed to provide a framework to ensure nature-based objectives are addressed through strategic investment and planning. Local Nature Recovery Strategies are also promoted as essential tools to integrate biodiversity planning across administrative boundaries. However, the potential strategic benefits of these proposals to offset nature recovery through the payment of a financial levy

may result in a lack of any significant onsite environmental provision. There is little clarity on how this separation between development impact and its mitigation will evolve and it creates a real risk that areas of poorly designed and unsustainable development may potentially be mitigated by remote and distant nature reserves. It is clearly a matter of public interest that all development, including infrastructure, is context sensitive and incorporates good landscape treatment. Failing to address this may result in new areas of environmental and social degradation and the creation of places that are unfit for living.

In addition, devolved and crossboundary decision-making is being advanced in England, supported by proposals for a national land use framework. These measures collectively indicate a shift towards more strategic, system-wide thinking about how development interacts with the natural environment. However, the mechanisms for delivery remain in flux, and the government has yet to fully answer how these new tools will safeguard nature in practice. The resource, skill and funding implications for both local planning authorities and government bodies are also legitimate concerns: does the UK have the right skills in the right places to build the green growth the government has set out? Early results from the LI’s investigation into workforce issues in the landscape sector suggest not.12 Proposals in the recent immigration white paper13 aim to wean organisations off the employment of non-UK workers and to meet skills needs domestically. This may work in the mid to long term, but it threatens to increase skills shortages and growth in professional areas (such as landscape) where training to high standards takes years.

When Prime Minister Keir Starmer articulated a ‘Plan for Change’ at the start of the year, he spoke of “taking

3. Hagshaw Energy Cluster: Co-location of renewable energy generation and storage technologies delivering optimisation from suitable land within the cluster. LI Awards finalist 2023.

4. Pydar river path illustration. LI Awards winner 2023. © PRP

9 https://www.gov. uk/government/ publications/nationalplanning-policyframework--2

10 https://www.gov. uk/government/ publications/ the-planning-andinfrastructure-bill

11 https://www.gov. uk/government/ publications/planningreform-working-paperdevelopment-andnature-recovery

12 Landscape Institute workforce and skills research to be published later in 2025. It will also be the focus subject of a journal edition

13 https://www.gov. uk/government/ publications/restoringcontrol-over-theimmigration-systemwhite-paper

5. Otterpool Park Garden Town. LI Awards finalist 2023.

6. Warners Fields, Birmingham. LI Awards finalist 2022.

14 https://www.gov. uk/government/news/ prime-minister-clearspath-to-get-britainbuilding

15 https://www.gov.uk/ government/speeches/ chancellor-vows-togo-further-and-fasterto-kickstart-economicgrowth

16 https://www.gov. uk/government/ publications/planningand-infrastructure-billimpact-assessment

17 https://www. landscapeinstitute.org/ policy/consultationresponses/

18 https://www. landscapeinstitute. org/news/industrybodies-call-ongovernment-to-set-aprecedent-for-naturepositive-developmentin-joint-letter-toprime-minister-andchancellor/

19 https:// defraenvironment.blog. gov.uk/2025/05/16/ planning-reformprotecting-naturewhile-supportinggrowth/

the brakes off Britain by reforming the planning system so it is pro-growth and pro-infrastructure”.14 With so much of the government’s proposed reforms still lacking clarity over the environmental implications, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has also said, “we are reducing the environmental requirements placed on developers … so they can focus on getting things built, and stop worrying about bats and newts”.15 However, the government’s own impact assessment has been able to cite very little evidence that environmental requirements delay development.16

In response to the prevailing growth vs nature rhetoric, the LI has responded to numerous consultations,17 engaged with parliamentarians and joined with organisations across the built and natural environment to raise concerns.18 We are writing to relevant ministers and meeting government and civil service officials to address planning policy issues and taking a collaborative approach to improvement.

As this edition goes to print, the government has acknowledged that questions have been raised over

whether the bill could jeopardise nature protection.19 In response, Defra continues to point to the NDF and EDPs as a means to adopt a strategic approach, reduce delays for developers and ensure environmental outcomes are delivered more effectively.

Nevertheless, the LI remains concerned about unresolved aspects of the reform agenda, particularly the risk that biodiversity could be displaced off-site, rather than embedded within the places where people live and work, and close to the communities that need access to green space the most.

We believe that landscape-led planning and the appropriate use of nature-based solutions are key to resolving this tension, and we look forward to working with the government, civil service and stakeholders across the industry to drive this approach. By designing with nature, not against it, planning reform can help to deliver the government’s growth agenda and shape a lasting legacy of healthy, sustainable and inclusive places that are fit for living.

Ian Phillips CMLI MRTPI

is Chair of the Landscape Institute Policy & Public Affairs Committee

Landscape Institute policy priorities

Director of Policy & Public Affairs, Belinda Gordon, sets out an LI policy agenda focused on bridging the gap between builders and blockers.

The Landscape Institute and its members are in a unique position in relation to the government’s housing and infrastructure development agenda. We bridge the ‘builders v blockers’ narrative that has developed, unfairly pitching nature concerns as preventing development.

LI members are the ones who can cross this divide, ensuring we get the housing and infrastructure we need and crucially that this development is high quality, creating new landscapes and places that deliver for people and the environment for the long term.

The policy team at the LI, ably supported by members and staff with policy, technical and communications expertise, has been working to exploit this unique position and expertise. Here I set out some of the ways we’ve

been doing this and our future approach to influencing policy.

Strategy

Given both planning and environmental policy are devolved, we have the challenge of influencing four administrations with limited staff resources. To do this as effectively as possible, we are moving our activities upstream, from responding to written consultations (by when many decisions have already been made) to engaging more directly with government sooner. With this in mind, the team have been building links with government officials, agencies and partners, as well as developing some focused policyinfluencing priorities to use as a way in and to build out our broader message about the importance of all landscapes and the vital role of landscape professionals.

Given the emphasis the government is placing on built development, our priorities for this year all relate to that agenda – in order to have impact, we can’t spread our resources too thinly.

To help deliver this approach, we have renewed the LI’s Standing

Committees, establishing a new Policy & Public Affairs Committee, chaired by Ian Phillips CMLI, and a Knowledge & Practice Committee, which will ensure members guide these areas of work. We were delighted by the response to our call for members to get involved and by the quality of applicants. The new Committees are now established and providing strategic oversight of our work.

Action

To begin to deliver this approach, the team have been busy meeting organisations such as Natural England (on biodiversity net gain (BNG) as well as broader landscape issues), the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (to discuss both design and broader planning policy), Defra (on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)), Northern Irish government and partners on design, the Scottish Government Planning Division; connecting with partners such as the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) on planning, the Construction Industry Council on skills and

Belinda Gordon

Policy-influencing Priorities

A landscape -led approach to built development is essential for delivering costeffectively for people, place and nature

immigration, Northern Ireland Environment Link, Historic Environment Scotland and the British Association of Landscape Industries (BALI) Scotland on skills and training needs, Learning through Landscapes, the Wales Landscape Group and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) on Environmental Outcome Reports; and working with the Better Planning Coalition on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

We have continued responding to critical consultations such as the Land Use Framework, Energy Planning Guidance Notes and the creation of a new national park in Scotland.

We have gathered data on the landscape workforce (an update to our 2022 Skills for Greener Places Report) to be published later in the year. And we have published an evidence-based briefing setting out why a landscapeled approach to built development is essential. Aimed at developers and policy makers, it was launched at UKREiiF in May, and will be the focus of our next Journal edition.

High streets

Green infrastructure / Parks / Access to greenspace

Wider planning – Bill, green / greybelt, design guides

Plans for Scotland, NI and Wales will focus on these examples but also cover 1 or 2 local priorities

Championing all landscapes, use of Landscape Character Assessment

Planning: EORs –England initially

BNG / Planning delivering biodiversity

SuDS & NBS & NFM

Landscape Skills & Workforce: LI Policy & LI Education staff working together

SuDS – Sustainable Drainage Systems NBS – Nature Based Solutions NFM – Natural Flood Management

Impact

It is too early to be able to judge our impact – it is clear that in Scotland, where we have strong links with the government, we have influenced policies such as Scotland’s Flood Resilience Strategy. In England, we are getting on the government’s radar and have been invited to various fora – such as a newly formed MHCLG Design Sector Forum and various National Energy System Operator groups.

Based on our refreshed brand identity, Corporate Strategy and case for a landscape-led approach to development, our visibility and impact will grow and we will have more tangible policy ‘wins’ to outline in future.

Coming up

In the next few months we’ll be delivering plans for each of the policy-influencing priorities outlined above, with input from the new Committees, including pushing hard for a landscape-led approach as being essential to build quality developments and new towns. As part of this, we will also be raising the profile of landscape workforce issues and focusing on

influencing the rapidly changing planning agenda in England – from Environmental Outcome Reports, to BNG exemptions, and another set of changes to the NPPF, to be consulted on shortly.

We are also delivering conferences around the UK, with a focus on housing and regeneration – the first being in Birmingham on 2 October, as well as webinars and masterclasses that support members on vital issues.

Get involved

We are dependent on member expertise to help guide and inform our policy work. We will be recruiting another set of members to our new Policy & Public Affairs Committee next year, but in the meantime we are looking for members for our Task & Finish groups on issues such as planning. If you’d like to help with this, please contact the policy team at policy@ landscapeinstitute.org.

Peat

Footing the bill

Towards a planning system fit for climate, nature and people? The Better Planning Coalition’s Richard Hebditch takes stock of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and looks ahead to where improvements could be made.

No one should have been in any doubt of the Labour government’s intentions to change the planning system. In opposition, Keir Starmer said he would “bulldoze through planning laws” and Labour’s manifesto set out their proposals for radical change.

In the months since coming to power, the government rewrote the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and commenced reviews of all the national policy statements that guide the planning system. Working papers were published on further changes to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) process, on how planning committees operate, on a new nature restoration fund to

replace Habitats Directive-derived protections for nature, and on new ‘brownfield passports’. Housing targets have been increased, meaning many local plans are obsolete as their five-year housing land supply is no longer sufficient for the higher targets.

Alongside this, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has been pursuing wider reforms to local government, publishing the English Devolution White Paper in December 2024. This proposes a more uniform suite of Strategic Authorities across England who, among a range of powers and duties, will have to produce a spatial development strategy. In addition, they will have development control powers similar to the Mayor of London, as well as influence over Homes England on housing and local councils on transport.

Much of the work over the last year is about making planning and local government more logical as viewed from Westminster. The focus is on helping ministers deliver their national

policy aims (including the 1.5 million new homes target) by removing blockages and making it easier for them to set policy that local government then has little choice but to implement. But it’s also about enhancing the state’s (including local planning departments), capability and capacity. Changes include the ability to recover costs through

Councils, housing associations and development corporations need the powers and finances to deliver housing themselves

Richard Hebditch

setting their own planning fees, creating the new strategic planning layer and strengthening development corporations.

After this flurry of activity from MHCLG, from the start of 2025 we’ve seen the rhetoric ramp up.

In spring came the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which put these competing policy narratives into legislation. The bill is broad ranging and aims to achieve the following:

– Streamline the NSIP process with changes beyond those for transport and electricity infrastructure planning and permitting processes

– Allow councils to retain income from planning fees

– Create national rules restricting the planning applications that elected councillors (as opposed to officers) will be allowed to decide through a national scheme of delegation

– Set out what should be included in spatial development strategies for the new strategic planning level

– Introduce Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) where developers can pay a levy to help deliver EDPs in

place of site-specific mitigation or compensation measures under the Habitats Regulations – Strengthen the role of development corporations

So where does the bill fall between the two visions within government for planning: one that tries to sweep planning out of the way and one that sees a reformed planning system as the way to deliver housing and infrastructure objectives?

To some extent, we don’t yet know. Much of the bill will be implemented through future guidance and regulations. Ministers have promised that they will consult on the new national scheme of delegation and that Natural England will start piloting EDPs while the bill is still making its way through Parliament. But at the time of writing, there is still no sign of these assurances.

The first part of the bill covers major infrastructure. The NSIP process has a problem with proposals taking longer and longer to get through the system, so tackling the causes of delays is reasonable. But there are

risks around quite how much freedom is given to ministers through these changes. For instance, one change will allow the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to move applications from the NSIP process into other planning processes. This is likely to include the Town and Country Planning Act, Highways Act, or Transport and Works Act regimes but could include the use of Local Development Orders or simplified planning zones. This removes the need for much oversight of developments, along with certainty and clarity on how major infrastructure will be determined, and could open to abuse.

The bill’s move to allow local planning authorities to set their own planning fees and to amend the planning fees model is welcome. This investment should help local authority planning departments reinvest fee income from planning applications directly back into their services and recover from over a decade of cuts. In addition, 97% of planning departments report planning skills gaps and, even in

the last year, departments were twice as likely to report that their workforce was decreasing rather than increasing.

The move to reintroduce strategic planning is also positive. Land is in short supply and we must plan strategically to manage the many competing demands upon it.

Effective strategic planning will be essential to ensure new developments are located in the right place and designed to both reduce car dependency and support healthy communities.

We welcome that the bill allows for strategic authorities to specify the amount or distribution of housing, including affordable provision. This will allow authorities to respond to the range of local needs rather than relying on housing developers’ proposals, which focus on the most profitable housing and force negotiation for the inclusion of affordable housing within a restrictive viability test.

However, planning reform alone is not enough. Councils, housing associations and development corporations need the powers and

finances to deliver housing themselves. Otherwise, they are reliant upon a limited number of volume developers who have strong financial reasons to manage a limited pipeline of housing delivery to maximise profits.

We hope that ministers will say more about the links between strategic planning in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the forthcoming English Devolution Bill and the Land Use Framework being consulted upon by Defra. Strategic planning will not succeed if strategic authorities, and local government more generally, lack the ability to make decisions around new transport services, infrastructure to support new development or areas to protect for nature.

The bill will also give the Secretary of State the power to set a national scheme of delegation for local planning decisions. Councils will not have the freedom to decide themselves which planning applications should be decided by officers and which should go to a planning committee. Delays to a limited number of major schemes is

97% of planning departments report planning skills gaps

not sufficient to justify excluding elected councillors from key decisions. The welcome measure of ensuring mandatory training of councillors on planning committees is a more proportionate response. The weakening of green belt protection in the revised NPPF, local government reorganisation and more decisions being taken behind closed doors by officers alone could lead to growing resentment rather than building public support for new development.

EDPs backed by a Nature Restoration Levy to require developers to fund nature recovery, offer potential for some environmental issues. But there are risks that, without

safeguards, these proposals could cause significant harm to wildlife. In the rush to develop the proposal, the bill as it stands lacks safeguards as it potentially withdraws the protections derived from the Habitats Directive without guaranteeing a system that will deliver improvements in practice. The Secretary of State’s power to unilaterally amend EDPs lacks key safeguards and could see improvements watered down. The bill includes a viability test where the rate of the levy cannot be set if it threatens the profitability of the development; this could result in an underfunding of the necessary improvements needed to outweigh harm from a development.

In particular, the bill should require benefits to significantly outweigh harm. Evidence from Biodiversity Net Gain and other offsetting schemes is that the anticipated benefits in a plan are not necessarily realised on the ground, so there is a need for legal underpinning to require significant environmental improvement.

Better planning is not only about procedural changes but also the outcomes it enables. A statutory purpose for planning should be the foundation of the government’s reform agenda and demonstrate a clear determination to refocus the system on renewal and sustainable development. Making clear the purpose of planning through a new clause in the bill could tie together all the strands being developed separately. This integrated approach would ensure key elements –biodiversity, water management, landscape and visual impacts, health and wellbeing, transport and climate targets – are considered from the outset. This would help ensure that new infrastructure and built environments contribute positively to our economy, society and environment.

The bill is now going through its committee stage and then to the House of Lords, where it’s likely to face tougher scrutiny. We hope that ministers recognise the concerns from parliamentarians and the public alike over the potential weakening of the

planning system. There must be recognition that delivering the government’s objectives needs a strong and capable system that works in the public interest, rather than one that is weakened, sidelined and weighted in favour of private developers.

Richard has been coordinator of the Better Planning Coalition since February 2025. He has worked in external affairs for a range of NGOs, as well as in the Cabinet Office, working to improve relations between the government and voluntary sector.

Landscape Institute response to Development and Nature Recovery

In spring 2025, the government consulted on a Planning Reform Working Paper for Development and Nature Recovery to dovetail with the implementation of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Landscape Institute acknowledges the aim of simplifying the process for developers, but we are concerned that nature recovery may be treated as separate from development, rather than being fully integrated into planning and placemaking.

The proposed Nature Restoration Fund may be attractive to developers due to its simplicity and certainty of cost. However, this approach risks isolating nature recovery in designated areas, rather than embedding natural systems as fundamental components of development. This would miss opportunities for delivering integrated, multifunctional landscapes that support biodiversity, climate resilience, and community wellbeing.

The fund may provide benefits in high-density, small-footprint developments – such as urban highrises – or in addressing cumulative impacts from incremental development. However, it is less suited to large-scale, low-rise housing schemes, where green infrastructure, open space, and community access are integral to good design.

We are also concerned about

the delivery capacity of responsible agencies. Many lack sufficient funding, multidisciplinary expertise, and access to reliable ecological data. While capital investment may enable the development of initial habitats, long-term monitoring and management are essential to securing lasting environmental benefits and must be properly resourced.

Furthermore, the proposal to substitute on-site mitigation with financial contributions risks undermining the established hierarchy, which prioritises avoiding and minimising harm before restoration or offsetting. It risks normalising offsetting, creating a disconnect between impacted communities and the benefits of nature recovery. The scale of mitigation should be based on relevant landscape character and catchment area assessments and may well cross political boundaries.

To be effective, the proposals must demonstrate genuine environmental net gain and ensure measurable improvements to community wellbeing. The current approach does not yet achieve this.

Scan here to read the working paper and the Landscape Institute response in full.

Rooted in SustainabilityThe Benefit of British-Grown Trees

Supplying trees to landscaping projects, local authorities and private estates across the UK.

trees.hillier.co.uk

Proven, High Impact, Low Maintenance SuDS

Wildflower SuDS Turf tried and tested in hundreds of interventions for flood resilience projects

Rapid Establishment

Pre-grown, dense roots deliver quick bank stabilisation

Verified Infiltration Rates

Tolerance for waterlogging and drought stress

Sustainable Design

100% peat-free product with no plastic netting

Stunning Visual Impact

100% flowers, long-flowering mixes for urban settings

High Ecological Impact

Natural England: the government advisor perspective on putting nature at the heart of development

Marian Spain, CEO of the government body responsible for the natural environment in England, explains that Local Nature Recovery Strategies are central to putting nature at the heart of local development.

1. Marian Spain.

2. Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), Shinfield.

1 https://www.gov.

uk/government/ publications/naturalenglands-strategicdirection-2025-2030/ recovering-naturefor-growth-healthand-security-naturalenglands-strategicdirection-2025-2030

2 https://www.gov.uk/ government/ collections/ biodiversity-net-gain

3 https://publications. naturalengland.org.uk/ publication/6414097 026646016

4 https://naturetowns andcities.org.uk/

5 https://www.gov.uk/ government/ publications/theplanning -and-infrastructurebill/factsheet-naturerestoration-fund

The government has set out an ambitious plan for kickstarting the economy and our transition to green energy. Planning reforms are key to speeding up the delivery of 1.5 million new homes, quadrupling the energy from offshore wind and reinstating onshore wind farms in England. The reforms include a raft of different measures including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and Nature Restoration Fund; the introduction of Strategic Authorities and Spatial Development Plans; a review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and the New Towns Task Force and Future Homes Accelerator, to name a few.

In Natural England’s recently published Strategic Direction, Recovering Nature for Growth, Health and Security,1 we set out how nature underpins our nation’s growth, economy, health and security. The current value of nature to the economy is estimated to be over £1.8 trillion.

Putting nature at the heart of new housing, infrastructure and renewable energy projects attracts greater investment and builds in resilience to climate change. Nature is integral to making great places for people to live, learn, work and play. It brings multiple

Case Study

Thames Basin Heaths Strategic approaches are delivering beneficial results for nature, greenspace and development. In the Thames Basin Heaths for example, Natural England worked with local authorities and developers on providing 2,000 hectares of alternative greenspace for residents to use, unlocking the 50,000 homes and enabling populations of Dartford warbler, woodlark and nightjar to increase.

benefits for businesses, communities and the economy: clean water and air, reduced flood risk, delivery of net zero targets and mitigation of extreme heat and drought. Connecting with nature also provides spaces for people to be refreshed and revitalised spiritually, mentally and physically.

But while there are many good elements to the current planning regime, it hasn’t been able to secure sufficient enhancements for nature to reverse the long-term loss of species and habitats. There are multiple inefficiencies in the current system, including delay, sub-optimal workarounds at site level in the absence of strategic solutions, lack of joined-up delivery and missed opportunities to deliver economies of scale.

Our vision Natural England has a clear ambition to support the government’s planning reforms by making a substantive shift in our planning advice work towards a more strategic space. After all, the restoration of our natural world is best achieved at scale, rather than in small increments.

Pivoting on Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS)

Central to putting nature at the heart of planning and development are Local Nature Recovery Strategies

(see diagram overleaf). Co-developed through local partnerships, these strategies provide the backbone for all things nature: setting out where nature is, providing opportunities for more nature and highlighting priorities for its creation and restoration. All local planning authorities have a legal duty to have regard to the relevant strategy for their area and it may be a ‘material consideration’ in the planning system. New Spatial Development Strategies and LNRSs will function at the same tier and this brings a significant opportunity for synergies to build nature into placemaking at a strategic level. Underpinning LNRSs are tools such as mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain2 and internationally recognised Green Infrastructure Standards. These will be key to creating accessible greenspace, nature recovery and increasing tree canopy cover. Tools like Natural England’s Environmental Benefits from Nature3 tool can aid the design of habitats to maximise wider benefits, for example for managing flood risk, air quality or water supply. New approaches, such as the Nature Towns and Cities4 accreditation (which is based on the Green Infrastructure Standards), will recognise and reward those places that have an ambitious vision to put nature at the heart of towns and cities.

The emerging Nature Restoration Fund (NRF),5 planned for launch

Marian Spain

in 2026 under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, offers a unique opportunity to simplify the developer user journey and deliver better outcomes for nature recovery. The NRF will allow us to assess impacts and develop mitigation, compensation and restoration for habitats and species at a strategic level, rather than at site level. This will in turn allow us to better manage environmental pressures such as nutrient pollution, enable faster delivery of housing and infrastructure and result in on-theground improvements for nature at scale. The government is working to refine the legislation and prepare for launch. If done well, the NRF could be a significant means of delivering LNRS ambitions.

– What can the sector do to support planning reforms?

– Engage with the government on the reforms;

– Support efforts to address workforce issues, particularly in local planning authorities;

– Align LNRSs and new Spatial Development Strategies;

– Take a landscape-led approach to masterplanning and make use of nature-positive tools;

– Use digital tools like Natural

Nature in plans and development

Local plan / Masterplan

3. Sheffield: grey to green. © Peter Neale

4. Eddington, Cambridge. © Peter Neale

5. Nature in plans and development.

Natural England

Houlton, Warwickshire

The Houlton housing development, east of Rugby in Warwickshire, will create design with high-quality green infrastructure at its core. With 50% green cover including natural play spaces, footpaths and green and blues spaces, there is plenty of opportunity for outdoor recreation. It showcases well the success of Natural England’s Accessible Greenspace standard and the Urban

Greening Factor standard. With meadowlands and ecology corridors designed in from the outset, it is achieving 27% Biodiversity Net Gain.

Working in partnership with parish councils, community groups, elected members and neighbouring residents, a place has been created that truly fits with Rugby and its existing communities, and meets the needs of residents, 95% of whom expressed a preference for living close to greenspace.

England’s Impact Risk Zone tool to streamline consultations; and – Engage Natural England early on high-risk/high-opportunity developments to ensure highquality applications that can be assessed quickly.

The current appetite for reform that will enable both development and nature recovery is a significant opportunity for positive change, provided we work together across central and local government, nature organisations, developers, infrastructure providers and businesses, for environmental recovery that benefits us all. Landscape architects, working alongside ecologists and planners, in both the public and the private sector, are ideally placed to help meet the government’s agenda, bringing vital expertise on the planning, design and management of land as a multifunctional resource.

This is a significant opportunity to re-shape the way development and nature work together to achieve benefits for people, nature and climate.

Marian Spain is CEO of Natural England

6. Mayfield Park in Manchester – the first new park in Manchester city for 100 years, putting green infrastructure at the heart of the city.

© Natural England

7. Houlton, Warwickshire. © Urban and Civic

Building for growth, planning for nature: Lessons from Bradford

A collaborative approach, aligning strategic ambition with local needs, supports a landscape-led approach to both growth and nature recovery in one of the UK’s most rapidly expanding cities.

The UK’s planning system is undergoing its most significant transformation in a generation, with the government’s commitment to building 1.5 million homes in England setting the stage for rapid development. However, this ambition raises a fundamental challenge: how do we ensure that economic

growth and housing expansion do not come at the cost of our landscapes, biodiversity and communities?

Bradford provides a compelling case study in this national debate. As one of the UK’s youngest, most diverse, and fastest-growing cities, it faces acute pressure to deliver housing while safeguarding its rich natural assets, including the South Pennines’ designated nature reserves and Special Protection Area. Through examining planning decisions in Bradford, and linking them with wider regional strategies such as Nature North, we can explore how a landscape-led approach, grounded in partnerships and collaboration, ensures that development supports both people and nature.

The challenge of balancing growth and nature

Bradford’s emerging local plan will seek to set out an ambitious vision for delivering homes, jobs and infrastructure while protecting and enhancing the environment. However, as in many parts of the country, this vision is tested by the tension between housing demand and the need to protect green spaces.

Bradford’s commitment to a landscape-led approach is not just about shaping places – it’s about shaping healthier lives. By embedding nature into city planning, Bradford’s landscape team are creating sustainable, healthy and equitable communities.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the upcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill place increasing emphasis on ‘brownfield-first’ development, but in areas like Bradford, viable brownfield land is limited. Developers often look to the green belt for expansion, which raises concerns about urban sprawl, biodiversity loss and increased flood risk. And the pressure is not only for housing and commercial growth, but also renewable energy developments such as large wind and solar farms or battery storage facilities in sensitive landscapes like the South Pennines.

A landscape-led approach offers a way forward. By designing developments that integrate nature-based solutions (such as green corridors, wetlands and urban tree planting), and by responding to local landscape character, Bradford can deliver housing and other types of development that enhance rather than erode the natural environment.

Professor Rosie McEachan, Director, Born in Bradford

Saira Ali FLI

Working alongside Bradford’s landscape team and our planning and landscape consultants has allowed us to integrate green spaces and nature into the very fabric of the city’s regeneration.

Simon Dew, Development Director, Muse Places

Nature North: A regional vision for growth and green recovery Nature North, a collaboration of environmental and economic partners, advocates for nature-led regeneration across the North of England. Its strategy aligns with national ambitions for economic growth but emphasises that investment in the environment should go hand in hand with development.

The relationship between Nature North and Bradford’s planning framework is key. The city’s strategic location, at the heart of a region rich in natural assets, positions it as a prime example of where nature recovery can be integrated into economic and housing growth. Through Nature North’s vision and investment priorities, Bradford can:

– Prioritise nature recovery in development – ensuring that new housing contributes to biodiversity gain and climate resilience

– Unlock funding and partnerships – working with landowners, businesses, and environmental organisations to implement landscape-scale restoration

– Enhance green infrastructure (GI) networks – connecting urban areas with surrounding natural landscapes, improving access to nature for communities.

Local plans, landscape-led approaches, and partnerships Bradford is already demonstrating how a landscape-led approach based on Nature North’s strategy can shape the city’s future. The council is taking proactive steps to embed this regional framework across a range of different planning scales, including:

– Bradford Local Plan: The council’s work on a new local plan is taking a landscape-led approach from the outset. It seeks to ensure connectivity of green spaces and other important GI assets through new development. This work is supported by an updated Landscape Character Assessment and a Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy that set the high-level context for a landscape-led approach to inform the policies in the local plan and choice of development sites.

– Homes and Neighbourhoods: A guide to designing in Bradford. This supplementary planning document guidance aligns with Nature North’s call for nature-integrated development, to ensure that housing projects actively contribute to GI.

– Transforming Cities Fund: A recently opened multi-million pound scheme that supports Nature North’s ambition for greener urban centres by introducing new public spaces, tree planting and active travel routes.

– Bradford City Village: A council-led scheme, working in partnership with developer Muse, Homes England and Legal & General, to deliver a vision for a new sustainable neighbourhood of up to 1,000 homes.

– Southern Gateway regeneration area: 140 hectares of underutilised commercial space on the southern edge of the city centre. The site offers one of the largest regeneration opportunities in the UK.

– Ilkley Flood Alleviation Scheme: Using tree planting and river restoration to reduce flood risk and deliver ecological enhancement, this scheme exemplifies Nature North’s emphasis on landscape-led water management, using nature-based solutions to address climate resilience and biodiversity loss.

1. Active travel infrastructure with integrated SuDS, Hall Ings, Bradford.

SWECO

These projects highlight how a collaborative approach – engaging environmental organisations, developers, government agencies, local businesses, and regional bodies like Nature North – can significantly strengthen landscape-led development.

Strengthening local planning capacity

Despite these ambitions, local planning authorities face significant resource constraints. Cuts to local government funding have reduced the capacity of planning teams, making it difficult to fully implement forward-thinking strategies. Bradford’s experience reflects a wider national issue: how can local authorities be better resourced to deliver high-quality, sustainable development?

One solution lies in strengthening the role of landscape professionals within the planning system. By embedding landscape-led approaches early in the planning process, we can ensure that new housing developments contribute positively to the local environment, enhance biodiversity and promote health and wellbeing.

Aligning planning policy with industrial strategy and transport investment

For a truly sustainable approach to growth, planning policy cannot operate in isolation. There is a pressing need to ensure that the planning reforms introduced by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) are aligned with the strategies of other government departments such as the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Department for Transport. For example, the promotion of investment in green industries by DBT should be directly linked to spatial planning frameworks that prioritise sustainable land use. This will integrate economic growth policies with landscape-led development principles to ensure that new development enhances both

At present, planning policy remains largely reactive to market forces, rather than proactively shaping the kind of development that balances economic, social and environmental priorities. Bradford’s partnership approach offers a template for national policy, demonstrating how growth and nature recovery can be integrated from the outset.

It is key that nature is seen as critical infrastructure. Bradford’s landscape-led approach is an excellent example of this, integrating nature and it benefits across policy and decision-making such as transport, health, visitor economy and climate resilience.

Dr Colm Bowe, Development Manager, Nature North

local character and environmental resilience.

2. Bradford City Village.

© 5 plus Architects / Dematerial

3. Norfolk Gardens, Bradford.

© Balfour Beatty

Devolution and the future of regional and strategic planning

The role of devolution in shaping planning policy is critical. The new West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) has increasing control over regional investment, yet strategic spatial planning powers remain limited compared to devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales.

WYCA is already the responsible body for strategic policy such as the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, and it has produced a Climate and Environment Plan in response to the climate emergency. Bradford is aligning local development projects and strategies with these goals.

However, to maximise the benefits of a landscape-led approach, greater powers should be devolved to regional authorities like WYCA, to:

–

Develop regional green infrastructure strategies, ensuring that nature recovery is embedded into long-term planning

– Coordinate cross-boundary nature-based solutions, especially for flood resilience, habitat restoration, and active travel networks

– Secure sustained funding for green regeneration initiatives, linking economic growth with environmental enhancement

A fully integrated approach, where local and regional planning decisions align with national strategies like Nature North, and sectoral policies from DBT and MHCLG, must be the ambition. This would ensure that landscape-led regeneration is not simply a local ambition, but a core element of national economic and environmental policy.

A future vision for Bradford and beyond Bradford’s approach demonstrates that growth and nature restoration do not have to be at odds. Through a combination of strategic planning, investment in nature recovery and a commitment to high-quality design, the city can be a model for sustainable development in the UK.

For this vision to succeed, planning reforms must empower local and regional authorities with the funding, skills and flexibility to make informed decisions. The new planning system must recognise that economic growth should not come at the expense of our landscapes and communities: it should work with them.

The new planning system should recognise that economic growth should be delivered by working alongside communities and landscapes to maximise benefits to the environment, health and the economy.

Cllr

Alex Ross-Shaw, Portfolio Holder – Regeneration, Planning & Transport

Bradford’s experience highlights the importance of a landscape-first approach to planning. If properly resourced and integrated into policy, this approach, supported by regional strategies and strengthened by devolution, can help shape not just a more sustainable Bradford, but a greener, more resilient future for our communities across the UK.

Saira Ali FLI is Team Leader of Bradford and Metropolitan District Council Landscape Design and Conservation Team

Read ‘Investing in Nature for the North: A Strategic Plan for a Nature Positive Regional Economy’ at www.naturenorth.org.uk

at Bradford Council

Law of nature: Clyst Valley Regional Park

Leaders of a new landscape-scale green infrastructure network in Devon argue that a strategic approach to nature recovery is welcome, but new delivery mechanisms proposed in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill must not undermine existing environmental law.

1. Clyst Meadows sketch.

2. River Clyst, Honiton.

Paul Osborne FLI

The Clyst Valley Regional Park (CVRP), on the eastern edge of Exeter, will provide a connected, multifunctional green infrastructure (GI) network that links existing historic villages and internationally important landscapes with the rapidly growing new community at Cranbrook, Exeter and the East Devon Enterprise Zone. The strategic approach to nature recovery proposed in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill offers the potential for a step change in the delivery of this vision to enable the creation of a nature-rich landscape that benefits the rapidly growing community. However, it is vital that the existing environmental protections from which CVRP has benefited to this point are not undermined by new mechanisms for nature delivery.

The vision for the Clyst Valley is to restore its landscape to create a tranquil haven for people and wildlife, with clear running waters nourishing new woodlands and wetlands, and an embedded resilience to climate change. The concept of the CVRP originates from LDA Design’s 2009 Green Infrastructure Strategy, which identified the importance of Clyst Meadows. These follow the River Clyst from Topsham on the Exe Estuary through Clyst St Mary and Broadclyst, to the National Trust’s 2,500-hectare Killerton Estate. The CVRP Masterplan1 sets out a vision and objectives for the Clyst Valley to create a multifunctional GI framework that provides space for people and nature, alongside a range of ecosystem services.

East Devon is one of the fastest growing districts in the country, with 8,000 homes completed, alongside significant employment growth, and plans to deliver a further 14,500 homes and a total of 26,000 jobs by 2040. The CVRP is essential to provide multifunctional ecosystem services, including water quality enhancement, flood storage, tree canopy cover, food production, habitat connectivity,

accessible green space and mitigation of the impacts of development on nearby European protected wildlife sites.

The South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership (comprising Exeter City, Teignbridge, and East Devon District Councils, with Natural England) has a track record of supporting the delivery of housing through a strategic approach to mitigating the impact of recreational impacts on internationally important locations. These include the Exe Estuary, Pebblebed Heaths National Nature Reserve, and Dawlish Warren. The South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy2 sets out on-site measures, which include Wildlife Wardens (a coordinated parking and signage strategy), and ‘Devon Loves Dogs’3 (a free scheme for dog owners to promote responsible dog walking on these sensitive habitats). In addition, it promotes off-site measures, most notably Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). These are funded through a rigorously tested and clearly set-out funding regime, through developers’ contributions from planning agreements (typically Section 106 or Unilateral Undertakings), direct delivery (for larger developments) or Community Infrastructure Levy contributions.

This approach has secured significant areas of developer-led SANGs at Cranbrook and other larger-scale housing schemes that provide high-quality natural green space for residents and the wider community within the Clyst Valley. Clyst Meadows, currently being established on-site, will be the first SANG delivered by East Devon within the CVRP and will provide a 10-hectare country park for recreational use and biodiversity enhancement.

1 The Clyst Valley Regional Park Masterplan was the overall winner of the RTPI South West Awards for Planning Excellence

2021. The masterplan was also the winner of the Awards Category

‘Excellence in Plan

Making’ and highly commended in the RTPI South West Chair’s award for ‘Health, Wellbeing and Inclusivity’.

The vision for the Clyst Valley is to restore its landscape to create a tranquil haven for people and wildlife, with clear running waters nourishing new woodlands and wetlands, and an embedded resilience to climate change.

The Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) and Environmental Development Plans (EDP) proposed in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill⁴ have the potential to supercharge this existing approach to mitigation, potentially enabling a forward-funded, strategic and multifaceted approach that could unlock landscape-scale nature recovery. However, there are concerns about the weakening of existing environmental protections in the bill as it is currently worded.⁵ The Office for Environmental Protection has advised the government that while they commend a more strategic approach to issues such as nutrient overloading, they are concerned about aspects of the bill that reduce the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law.⁶ If EDPs are implemented, it is vital that they are evidence-based and integrated with Local Nature Recovery Strategies to ensure they protect key species and habitats and truly deliver nature recovery.

An EDP for the Clyst Valley could support the CVRP masterplan objectives, ensuring equitable access to nature by providing more accessible natural greenspace close to people’s homes – particularly as many nature-rich places in Devon are difficult to visit without access to a car.

3. Clyst Meadows heart tree planting.

4. Clyst Valley Regional Park boundary.

2 https://www.southeastdevonwildlife.org.uk/

3 https://www.devonlovesdogs.co.uk/

4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ the-planning-and-infrastructure-bill/guide-tothe-planning-and-infrastructure-bill

5 https://www. wildlifetrusts.org/news/ gaps-planning-infrastructure-bill-deeply-concerning-say-wildlife-trusts

6 https://www. theoep.org.uk/ report/oep-gives-advice-government-planning-and-infrastructure-bill

The structure of the NRF and EDPs is not yet clear, nor is the role Natural England will take as the designated delivery body, but the potential for existing delivery partnerships (such the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership) to share learning and build upon these successful mitigation strategies should not be lost. For CVRP, and many more similar projects around the country, there is a clear opportunity for a strategic approach, underpinned by protection of our important landscapes and habitats, to restore nature and enable sustainable development. The successful delivery of landscape-scale strategies such as the CVRP masterplan, and wider outcomes such as nutrient neutrality, carbon capture and health and wellbeing benefits, relies on existing levels of environmental protection not being reduced.

Paul Osborne FLI is Green Infrastructure Project Officer for East Devon District Council. All views are his own.

Tree planting with Broadclyst Primary School.

1 https://www. publicpractice.org.uk/ reports/recruitment-

Research shows public sector lacking in essential landscape skills

If the UK government is serious about integrating nature recovery strategies alongside ambitious housebuilding and infrastructure programmes, more landscape architects must be recruited and given meaningful roles across development, parks and regeneration departments.

Despite our famed love of gardens, the UK is one of the most biodiversity-depleted environments in the world. Since the introduction of the Environment Act 2021, it has been a legal requirement for every Defraappointed responsible authority in England to produce a Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) to mitigate against biodiversity decline, address escalating climate change threats, and deliver improved natural environments for citizens.

But pressure on housing has driven the current government to declare an ambitious target for 1.5 million new homes, the construction of which threatens to undermine precious natural ecosystems and landscapes. Local authorities, whose planners will need to ‘have regard’ for the LNRS when preparing local plans, require the right skills in-house to make informed decisions. A UK-wide, 2024 Recruitment & Skills Insight Report¹ that we conducted with more than

400 public sector officers identified landscape architecture as one of the most needed, yet most lacking, skills, in public sector placemaking. Other gaps exist in ecology, biodiversity and environmental sustainability. Of 420 respondents, 69% identified landscape architecture as a skill their team doesn’t have enough of.

Public Practice is a not-for-profit organisation, founded to address the critical shortage of planning and placemaking skills in local government. In 2018, we launched the Associate Programme, a pioneering initiative that works with local authorities to place talented, mid‐career, built-

environment professionals into public sector roles, for a minimum of one year. The success of the programme is evidenced by the many who choose to stay beyond that first year, and whose ongoing input has been welcomed within their respective teams. We have now placed over 350 Associates in around 100 public sector organisations. Over 80% of them had never worked in the public sector before, and approximately 75% remain in place two years after the initial 12-month contract ends.

The roles for which Public Practice recruits are wide-ranging, from architects working in town-centre

Pooja Agrawal

1. Public Practice spring 2024 cohort. © Benoît Grogan-Avignon

With the right skills in-house, local authorities can confidently lead this change by engaging stakeholders, holding housebuilders to higher standards and embedding nature at the heart of policy.

2. Allocating the right resource in the right places.

3. Grassington, North Yorkshire.

economic developments to engineers working on large-scale infrastructure projects. We have recruited landscape architects into roles ranging from steering county-wide LNRS strategies (see p35), to coordinating landscape and maintenance departments or advising within planning and regeneration teams.

There is, of course, variation in the level of support for, or understanding of, landscape architecture within each authority. Helen Sayers, for example, moved from a landscape team within a London-based commercial architecture practice (PRP) to join the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service. Helen is one of five landscape architects within her team, which works within a wider group of technical specialists in urban design, heritage and the natural environment. She says: “We work as an advisory service to planning officers, providing specialist landscape design and planning input on strategic sites, the emerging local plan and the landscape design elements of planning applications. A large part of the role is contributing, with colleagues, to pre-application discussions with developers.”

Helen adds: “Cambridge has always had this team, even when the

two planning services were separate. Cambridge is economically thriving, with many interesting developments and infrastructure projects emerging, and the planning service is well resourced and well structured.” She is now a permanent team member.

Lee Heykoop is another Associate with a background in landscape architecture. She joined Tower Hamlets in 2021 as a regeneration project manager. She says: “Tower Hamlets had two different landscape and maintenance teams in two separate directorates. The excellent parks landscape team was a marked contrast to the maintenance team, who were driving down use and biodiversity in pocket parks and roadside green spaces.” Lee put together a strategy document to improve joint working between these services, and has since gone on to another public sector role, this time with Homes England, which carries the potential for even greater strategic impact.

However, even in the most enlightened planning departments, there are challenges. Helen cites a lack of understanding around how to implement landscape works on the part of both contractors and

developers: “For example, in South Cambridgeshire, there are a lot of housing schemes that have a Section 106 agreement for open space and those are very poorly implemented… Developers and main contractors don’t have in-house expertise, and so planting often fails and has to be replanted.”

With pressure increasing on local authorities around the provision of new housing, and new requirements such as Biodiversity Net Gain and Strategic Development Strategies on the horizon, the need for landscape architects in the public sector has never been greater. With the right skills in-house, local authorities can confidently lead this change by engaging stakeholders, holding housebuilders to higher standards and embedding nature at the heart of policy. We are committed to bringing more talented and motivated landscape experts into the public sector and empowering them to have the broadest possible impact.

Pooja Agrawal is an architect, planner and co-founder and CEO of the not-for-profit organisation, Public Practice.

Public Practice in practice: The essential role of landscape architects in developing Local Nature Recovery Strategies

Landscape architect Tim Johns signed up as a Public Practice Associate in October 2022. As Senior Policy Officer for North Yorkshire Council, he has been devising a deliverable Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

My role as a landscape architect within the local planning authority of North Yorkshire Council is about building bridges between the technical world of nature specialists and a broad group of stakeholders, including farmers, residents, managers of rivers and woodlands and the Yorkshire Dales and North York Moors National Park Authorities. The aim is to synthesise an understanding of what a good nature recovery programme might entail across such diverse landscapes and communities.

The role requires initiative, collaboration, problem-solving and communication: working on the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) has been about negotiating lots of hurdles and I’ve had to use all four skills in the pursuit of a successful outcome. There is plenty of

collaboration, due to the involvement of many different parties. There is also a lot of problem solving. And everyone we talk to around LNRS is on a spectrum: some people know a hell of a lot about nature, some a lot less. Because we have all these different interfaces, we need to adapt our message to each one.

North Yorkshire, the UK’s largest county, has seen a significant decline in wildlife due to loss of habitats caused by a variety of factors: from pollution and pesticide use to development and climate change. Given that the county is 70% farmland, it is reassuring to see how willing some farmers have been to collaborate. Several joined the six workshops the LNRS team ran in spring 2024, with each focusing on a specific habitat. We had a lot of goodwill in the room, which has informed the LNRS proposal that was put out for statutory consultation in May and will be finalised in autumn 2025.

Having had my initial 18-month contract with North Yorkshire Council extended to three years, I hope to be able to play a part in this vital opportunity to create a network of nature-rich sites that are more joined-up across both the county and the country.

Tim Johns is Senior Policy Officer at North Yorkshire Council and a landscape architect and urban designer with experience working across transport, education, housing, health, and infrastructure.

Tim Johns CMLI

1. Sutton Bank.

© Abbie Jennings 1.

Not all wildflower turf is created equal

The difference between success and failure is in the roots.

Other growing systems

Use a felt-like matting

Lab analysed UK seed.

Well-balanced species ratio.

Scientifically engineered substrate. Root network suppresses weeds.

Biodegradable netting. Easy for roots to penetrate.

Roots kept intact.

Limits root penetration, stresses plants, causes some species loss. Requires more watering.

Want to know more? Scan here for a free expert session!

Cut the roots

More grasses added in order to lift turf. This grass will outcompete flora.

All roots are cut at harvest. Slow to establish and some species loss.

Digital frontiers

The new planning system must utilise digital technologies to efficiently integrate landscape benefits into development

Tracy Whitfield

As the planning and landscape sectors confront the prospect of supporting the delivery of 1.5 million homes and critical infrastructure, it is evident that digital technologies are indispensable. The Landscape Institute (LI) continues to play its part in driving this transformation, championing the integration of nature and communities into the digital future of planning.

Key to this work is the development of the LI’s Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) database – a robust, accessible resource

designed to help authorities and developers make new development sensitive to local people and places. By aligning with Natural England and other devolved bodies, the LI is ensuring this tool supports planning processes with insight on landscape heritage, data and impact.

In parallel, the LI’s involvement with the Digital Task Force for Planning and engagement with the New Towns Taskforce highlights our efforts to embed landscape values into the delivery of new homes and infrastructure. Working together, stakeholders must harness the digital planning ecosystem to model land use, optimise green infrastructure, and foreground nature-based solutions in strategic decision-making.

Digital Task Force for Planning

The Digital Task Force for Planning is a not-for-profit enterprise that positions spatial planning at the forefront of addressing grand challenges and envisions a planning profession

Tracy Whitfield is Technical & Research Manager at the Landscape Institute. Visit to view the LCA database: landscapeinstitute.org/ technical-resource/landscapecharacter-assessment-lca-database.

equipped with new digital tools, expertise, and improved data.

The first project to be delivered is the Digital Planning Directory, including a range of UK digital planning service providers for community engagement, visualisation, mapping, sustainability, design, plan-making, artificial intelligence, and more. Our goal is to unlock the full potential of spatial planning in the digital era by acting as a convenor, facilitator, and enabler of digitalisation in spatial planning practice and education.

The future of built and natural

environment practices should be interdisciplinary and digitally empowered, and the contribution of landscape professionals will be essential for shaping a digital future that benefits people, nature, and society.

Dr Wei Yang is Co-Founder and CEO of the Digital Task Force for Planning and Chair of Wei Yang & Partners.

Find out more in the ‘Digital’ edition of Landscape (Autumn 2024).

Dr Wei Yang

1. Digital planning system structure.

Digital Task Force For Planning

BNG: Bringing landscape architects into the conversation from the outset

Without early engagement with landscape architects and a framework that values ecologically valuable sites, BNG risks becoming just another compliance box to tick.

The introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) has propelled landscape architects to the forefront of development conversations. Finally, we’re in the room early, challenging design principles and influencing the very foundations of placemaking. Our input is now vital to shaping developments that genuinely enhance natural habitats rather than merely mitigate their loss.

But being at the table is only the beginning.

BNG is more than just a policy; it’s an opportunity. And if we don’t lead with conviction, it risks becoming simply another compliance box to tick. It’s our responsibility to ensure that site-specific, robust strategies are embedded from the outset, rather

than falling back on generic offsetting solutions that serve policy but miss the point of meaningful ecological uplift.

Yet while the ambition is clear, the route to achieving it is not. Delivering BNG comes with very real challenges: urban land constraints, limited local authority resources and a growing reliance on off-site compensation schemes all raise questions about the long-term viability and integrity of the policy.

Encouraging biodiversity should be embraced as an investment in natural capital. But in practice, it’s at risk of being treated as a future liability, especially when the ecological value of a site conflicts with development goals. Take, for example, a disused city-centre car park in Newcastle. Over time, this brownfield site may have rewilded naturally, supporting diverse flora and fauna. On paper, it scores high on the BNG baseline metric. But in reality, it could trigger planning constraints, ecological surveys, species mitigation strategies and timelines that are difficult to navigate. Paradoxically, such ‘green’ sites can become harder to develop than their

ecologically barren counterparts. Now contrast this with a car park in central London, mostly asphalt, with minimal biodiversity value. Here, the scope for ecological enhancement is broad, and planning pathways are relatively clear. Developers can

Mounia Chaoul, CMLI

integrate nature with fewer hurdles, achieving the required net gain with greater certainty.

But even in seemingly straightforward cases, limitations emerge. In the redevelopment of a student housing site in London, for instance, achieving a 10% BNG proved nearly impossible on-site.

Space restrictions meant that lost trees couldn’t be replaced within the application boundary. The only viable option was to offset, either by planting elsewhere within the same local planning authority or purchasing habitat units from a third-party provider. The problem? Most of these providers don’t offer individual tree units. Instead, they deal in credits for habitats like lowland meadows, which are easier to source, meet the BNG trading rules and are cost comparable. This workaround satisfies policy, but does it serve the place? Does it deliver the meaningful, sustainable development we’re all striving for?

The answer is often no. When compensatory habitats are created miles away from the site of impact, we lose the opportunity to improve local ecosystems and community wellbeing. And, more worryingly, we set a precedent for meeting the letter

We must call for a framework that streamlines planning without diluting ecological rigour.

of the law without fulfilling its spirit.

That’s why early engagement is critical. When landscape architects are brought in from the start, we can shape strategies that embed nature into the design, rather than bolt it on at the end. On a recent project, we had to fight to integrate sustainable drainage systems and green-blue roofs, features often met with resistance cloaked as pragmatism: “This is a great idea, but here’s why it won’t work.” What if, instead, we heard: “This is a challenge… how can we make it work together?”.

We are still in the early design stages of many frameworks. This is our moment, not to settle for aspiration, but to actively challenge

Beckenham Place Park East

The proposal is a regeneration of the eastern side of the park. The project includes 28,000m² of native meadows, 1,900m² of shrubs and herbaceous plants (5,500 total plants), 236 trees of 25 species (80% native, 20% climate-resilient), 1,500m² of native hedgerow whip planting and 5,500m² of native broadleaf woodland species.

The BNG on this project is more than 22%, which was easier to achieve in terms of an increase and diversification of planting and less built-up space.

constraints. The BNG policy gives us a mandate to push for more ambitious, site-led outcomes. It’s not only our opportunity; it’s our obligation.

To do this well, we need mechanisms that balance ecological enhancement with the realities of urban regeneration. The current system risks delaying projects on ecologically valuable land while giving a free pass to low-value sites and missing an opportunity to maximise their potential. We must call for a framework that streamlines planning without diluting ecological rigour. One that values context and encourages long-term stewardship.

Because the real question is this: will the planning system continue to empower us, or will shortcuts and loopholes erode the progress we’ve made?

As landscape architects, we are uniquely placed to turn BNG from a bureaucratic hurdle into a design opportunity. Let’s not waste the invitation to lead.

Mounia Chaoul CMLI is Landscape Architect Associate at BDP

1. Beckenham Place Park East. © BDP

Where do SuDS fit within the new planning system?

Embedding sustainable water management must be at the core of development planning, starting with mandatory SuDS implementation across England, argues Cristina Refolo.

As the UK moves forward with wide-ranging planning reforms, the essential role of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) is becoming increasingly important. The UK’s disjointed and ageing sewerage infrastructure continues to battle with higher-intensity rainfall, probably as a result of climate change. Due to this, the risk of flooding in urban areas has increased dramatically.

One way to combat this risk is through SuDS, including nature-based solutions such as rain gardens, greenblue roofs and detention basins. In densely populated urban areas, where many surfaces are impermeable and natural infiltration and drainage are restricted, SuDS work by providing alternatives to channelling surface water run-off into nearby watercourses

through pipes and sewers that were not designed for that volume of flow. Although the principal function of SuDS must be related to capturing rainwater close to where it falls, it can often provide multiple simultaneous blue-green infrastructure benefits that include amenity, biodiversity, filtration and improvement in water quality and attenuation.

We know that the government aims to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the next five years and intends to speed up planning approval. With this in mind, it is important not to lose sight of the critical role SuDS play as key blue-green infrastructure. Therefore they must be woven into the emerging planning reforms.

A brief history of Schedule 3

In 2007, the UK suffered severe summer floods. As a result of this, Westminster passed the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, introducing measures to reduce flood risk, which was likely being exacerbated by climate change. Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs), responsible for managing local flood risk, were created. Schedule 3 of the

Act established a new legal framework for the design, approval, adoption, and maintenance of SuDS in new developments across England and Wales. Its key provisions included incorporating SuDS for all new developments (above a certain size) and the creation of SuDS Approval Bodies (SAB). These SABs were to approve proposed developments and potentially adopt and maintain them if they serve multiple properties. The right to connect to a public sewer would be conditional on SAB approval.

While Schedule 3 has been implemented in Wales, it has not yet in England. Defra had set the implementation of Schedule 3 in England for 2024. However, at the time of writing this article, Schedule 3 has not been adopted, despite the scale of housebuilding the government is proposing. This leaves developers, local authorities and water companies with no clear guidance or timescale for mandatory SuDS requirements.

Cristina Refolo CMLI

award-winning

Policy review: Where do SuDS fit?

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out the government’s planning policies for England, was revised in December 2024. The revised document followed a consultation exercise that demonstrated strong evidence for changes being needed in relation to the ‘sequential test’, ‘SuDS’ and ‘natural flood management’.1

Changes in the NPPF relating to SuDS and sustainable development include:

1. A clarification of SuDS terminology

1 https://www.ada. org.uk/2024/12/ updated-nppfmodest-changes-tothe-consideration-offlood-risk-and-sudswithin-the-planningsystem/

2 https://www.gov. uk/government/ publications/nationalplanning-policyframework--2

The NPPF updated the SuDS definition in its glossary, to clarify that a wide range of interventions, suitable for both small and large developments, qualify as SuDS. The 2024 NPPF glossary reads as follows:

“… Sustainable Drainage System: A sustainable drainage system controls surface water run off close to where it falls, combining a mixture

of built and nature-based techniques to mimic natural drainage as closely as possible, and accounting for the predicted impacts of climate change. The type of system that would be appropriate will vary from small scale interventions such as permeable paving and soakaways that can be used in very small developments to larger integrated schemes in major developments…”2

2. Removal of limitations for SuDS on major developments only

The new NPPF paragraph 182 removes the limitation for SuDS to be considered only on ‘Major Developments’ and promotes the consideration of SuDS for all developments, proportionate to the scale and nature of the scheme. The new wording also stresses that SuDS should provide multiple benefits wherever possible:

“... Applications which could affect drainage on or around the site should incorporate sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff, and which are proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. These should

provide multifunctional benefits wherever possible, through facilitating improvements in water quality and biodiversity, as well as benefits for amenity. Sustainable drainage systems provided as part of proposals for major development should: a) take account of advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority; b) have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards; and c) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development.”

3. Redefinition of ‘sequential test’

A sequential test in flood risk assessments directs new development to areas with the lowest flood risk. This is achieved by comparing the proposed development site with other ‘reasonably available sites’ to identify the one with the lowest risk. The goal is to avoid development in areas of high flood risk, and encourage it ideally in Flood Zone 1. The test requires developers and decision-makers to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in areas at lower risk

1. Little Easton: An

scheme that combines rain gardens, permeable hard surfaces and beautiful amenity into a new build development in Essex.

© Refolo Landscape Architects

of flooding that could accommodate the development. However, the phrase has long been criticised for being too vague and open to interpretation, leading to inconsistent application by local authorities and developers. The new NPPF adds paragraph 175, which states that a sequential test is not needed when a development is located outside areas of flood risk (Flood Zones 2 or 3). This change, however, does not remove the need for SuDS features within developments. There is a risk that the lack of a sequential test will mean some developments may proceed without sufficient assessment of how they impact natural drainage patterns or connected habitats beyond the site boundary. This could lead to fragmented or poorly integrated SuDS schemes that fail to deliver their full environmental benefits, such as flood mitigation, biodiversity support and water quality improvement.

NPPF paragraph 175 reads as follows:

“…The sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations

where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk)….”

A commitment to changing Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

In line with evolving climate data, national planning policy, and lessons from flood events, the government has pledged a commitment to update the PPG. The guidance is expected to address climate change, providing guidance on flood zones and SuDS, and include a better definition of ‘reasonably available sites’ for the sequential test.

The

impact of the NPPF and PPG on the planning system

The NPPF and the PPG shape planning decisions and enforcement

practices but are not enforceable in the strict legal sense. Enforcement of planning control is governed primarily by legislation, and the NPPF advises that enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately. The NPPF supports authorities in deciding enforcement actions and informs local plans.

While the NPPF is not legally binding in the sense of being a law or regulation, it is a material consideration in planning decisions and carries significant weight. Ignoring the NPPF or PPGs can lead to a finding that a planning decision was unlawful, which has consequences. The inclusion of SuDS elements in these policies and guidance is an important step forward. In summary, the new NPPF strengthens the expectation that all developments integrate natural flood management approaches, especially through SuDS, and clarifies their multifunctional role in delivering flood resilience, biodiversity and amenity benefits.

2. The Water Gardens: new green roofs increase storm-water infiltration within the site and reduce the heat island effect in addition to providing food and habitat to a wide range of species.

© Refolo Landscape Architects

Where else are SuDS mentioned in the current planning reforms?

As the Land Use Framework advances, and amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are debated, it remains crucial to emphasise the vital role that green and blue infrastructure play in shaping healthy, vibrant communities, benefiting people, wildlife and water alike.

The Landscape Institute’s Policy & Public Affairs Committee is actively involved in advocating for amendments that emphasise the critical role of blue and green infrastructure within planning policy. The Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of environmental organisations, including the Landscape Institute, is backing one key amendment that is currently being considered as part of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It called on the Secretary of State to exercise powers under Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, within six months of the Act’s passage, to make SuDS mandatory for all new developments. This proposal underscores the growing consensus that there is an urgent need to embed sustainable water management at

the core of development planning. The amendment wasn't accepted by the Bill Committee at the time of writing, though there may be other opportunities as it progresses to the House of Lords.

In conclusion

While SuDS are referenced throughout the NPPF, and in potential future amendments to the PPG, these policies and guidelines are not legally binding, although they exert considerable influence through shaping local plans. The enactment of Schedule 3, however, would mean that all developers and local authorities must follow the same standards, as SuDS would become mandatory. This would create a level playing field so responsible developers incorporating SuDS cannot be undercut by others who are less concerned about the negative consequences of SuDS avoidance for households and neighbourhoods. Embracing naturebased solutions wherever feasible would unlock the multiple benefits that SuDS offer; not only enhancing communities but also providing developers with more cost-effective and sustainable alternatives to traditional drainage systems.

Equally crucial is the accurate interpretation and ongoing maintenance of SuDS. The original design approved at the planning stage must be properly implemented at the construction stage. The SuDS must then be effectively maintained and clearly understood by subsequent landowners or design teams if ownership changes. Unfortunately, the original intent is frequently compromised when sections of the system are selectively modified, disrupting continuity and undermining, or even nullifying, the intended benefits. Such alterations often stem from fundamental misunderstandings of SuDS.

Finally, a phobia of SuDS due to ignorance of its multiple benefits needs to be addressed. SuDS must be demystified by education and research and positively endorsed by all sectors of the industry.

Cristina Refolo CMLI is an accredited Building with Nature Assessor and specialises in nature-based water management. She has a background in socio economic-environmental studies from the London School of Economics.

3. Little Easton: The green-blue infrastructure incorporated into a 44 residential development in Essex won several awards.

© Refolo Landscape Architects

From the ground up: the foundations of an effective land use framework

As Defra consults on a national land use framework, it must be recognised that a multifunctional, inclusive approach is essential for its long-term success.

Sue Pritchard

Land is a finite resource under increasing pressure. By one recent estimate, the UK would need an area more than double the size of Wales to meet all the government’s targets for climate and nature restoration by 2050. If the UK is also going to build millions of new homes, produce clean energy and grow nutritious food, many actors will have to make smart decisions about land to deliver multiple outcomes at once. The problem is that the current set of decision-making tools is not up to the job of managing the complexity and multifunctionality needed. This is where the land use framework comes in. Put simply, this is a process that helps mediate and resolve difficult choices about how to use land. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC) developed the concept as part of its initial inquiry, which culminated in 2019. Back then, we were warned that land was a somewhat taboo topic. But with so many critical issues coalescing around land use decisions, we found widespread acknowledgement that it was time to face into the tensions. To aid our deliberations, we looked around the UK and internationally for ideas about what works.

Inspiration came from the Public Value Framework designed by Sir Michael Barber for the Treasury, a process designed to facilitate better decisions around public spending. Building on this approach proved to be the breakthrough needed. Working with expert colleagues with diverse interests in land, we explored a framework approach, based on a set of principles and practices applicable at any scale, for local and national organisations, businesses and communities. We investigated the data and expertise needed by leaders and land use decision makers to help them balance competing imperatives. Our collaborative research crystallised into six guiding principles, underpinned with supporting ways of working.

The six guiding principles and ways of working for an effective land use framework:

Land-led: Land should be being used for the things that it suits: going with the grain, learning from experience and history, appropriate to the geology, habitats, soil and landscape character.

Adaptive and resilient: Land should be being used in a way that adapts to and mitigates change created by the climate crisis (including the uncertainties and risks brought by increased flooding and drought, shifting seasons and temperatures and new pests and diseases), to enable communities to respond to multiple future scenarios.

The pilots provided many lessons about how frameworks can work in practice.

Locally responsive: The people who own, manage or farm land and lead decision-making should integrate local needs and aspirations into plans and be mindful of responsibilities to their local environment and community. The decision-making process must bring together views from across local urban and rural communities and include varied expertise to build shared understanding.

Outward and future focused: Local decision-making needs to account for impacts on other communities, the non-human world and the needs and wellbeing of future generations.

Multifunctional: With its area limited, land needs to be used to its full capabilities to bring about multiple benefits that address varied human and ecological needs for food, water, clean air, energy, nature, health and wellbeing. Organisations and agencies should work together to consider potential multifunctional uses and values to ensure potential unintended consequences are understood.

Contributing prosperity: Land can be used to sustain local livelihoods, jobs and supply chains, without waste and while also delivering additional public benefits.

However, ‘a map is not the territory’ and models and frameworks are inconsequential unless they help in material and genuine ways.

Following publication of those early ideas, the FFCC has had the opportunity to test and develop the framework. This has taken place through trials in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and Devon, with oversight from our national advisory group. The trials have been carried

out through partnerships with local bodies and national agencies, such as the Geospatial Commission, the Environment Agency, British Geographical Survey and World Wildlife Fund, among others.

Beginning in 2020–21, these pilots trialled how these frameworks might work at a local level, while the government was deciding what position to take. While there are many ways of defining what is ‘local’ – catchment, landscape or bioregional – we opted to trial a political scale, both to anchor the framework alongside other initiatives and to offer local citizens a degree of democratic accountability over the process.

The pilots provided many lessons about how frameworks can work in practice. Committed leadership was central to success: bringing together relevant stakeholders and evidence, discussing the trade-offs and tensions inherent to land use issues and attending regular meetings to build trust and knowledge in the process required significant investment from the leadership across the local system. These pilots took a county-level approach, but land use decisions must be taken at a scale appropriate to the topic. This is why it is so important that the framework has national guidelines, while the data and approaches are interoperable across boundaries and scales.

Starting with principles informs the kinds of questions that a land use framework should ask. This approach also determines the data and evidence that decision-makers should draw upon to make informed choices. For example, decisions aiming to build resilience should focus on both present and future risks of problems such as flooding and drought, that will only be exacerbated by climate change. This might mean examining future scenarios and climate predictions. Similarly, the principle of focusing outward requires the consideration of the impact of potential land use choices or changes beyond the immediate area, whether that is further down the river catchment or around national food supply chains. What we’ve also found is that these principles can be applied across

2. The six guiding principles and ways of working for an effective land use framework.

© Food, Farming and Countryside Commission

different parts of the country and at different scales, including in the devolved administrations of Wales and Scotland, where there has been a more joined-up approach to land-use decision-making than England.

Over the last five years, the notion of a land use framework has taken hold. It has appeared in the National Food Strategy, a Royal Society Report and a House of Lords Committee on Land Use, among many others. Meanwhile, the government in England has spent many years developing its own version of the framework. After several false starts, a 12-week consultation was launched in January 2025. This has been a precious opportunity for everyone with a stake in how we collectively make decisions about the UK’s limited land to make this process the best it can possibly be.

Alongside Defra’s engagement programme, FFCC ran a supporting series of workshops across the country.

It’s exciting that at long last England is having a meaningful, national conversation about land use. But there’s a risk that what emerges from this discussion falls short of the ambition that’s required to meet all our urgent challenges.

After Secretary of State Steve

Reed launched this conversation with a speech at the Royal Geographical Society, media attention focused on the maps and projections for land use change. While maps are a key element of a land use framework, they should be tools for smart decision-making rather than the end result. They help organise our thinking for a particular purpose but the aim should be to create a process that helps people make choices that work for the collective benefit.

Focusing on maps can lead to another mistake. A land use framework should not be dictated from Westminster as a top-down strategy, though you’ll often hear policymakers and politicians slip into that language. The nature of a framework is important. What’s

needed is a process or an architecture for decision-making that identifies the important questions and establishes some principles for answering them. Importantly, these principles and the data informing the choices made should be formed from the bottom up, while also reflecting regional and national priorities. Farmers and people in communities will often have deep knowledge about the landscapes that surround them, including how they can achieve multiple outcomes at once. A successful framework will live and die by this on-the-ground support.

Defra’s consultation focuses mainly on the use of land for food production and nature. At FFCC we’ve learned through our trials that people involved in making balanced, longterm decisions require much more

A land use framework should not be dictated from Westminster as a top-down strategy, though you'll often hear policymakers and politicians slip into that language

3. The prototype spatial data visualisation tool developed as part of the Cambridgeshire pilot.

© Food, Farming and Countryside Commission

4. A recent FFCCled workshop in Cambridgeshire with stakeholders.

Food, Farming and Countryside Commission

What access to greenspace does the public need for healthy lives?

information. Where are the future housing needs? What water stresses is this area going to face? What energy and transport infrastructure is going to be required? What access to greenspace does the public need for healthy lives? They want answers, not for some abstract reason, but because resolving these questions has a material impact on their everyday

lives, where they live and work. While academics and policymakers are brilliant at their own specialisms, working out how to use land requires us to break out of siloed thinking into a more systemic and grounded approach. The framework should bring all this information into one place. There are several other spatial plans in development or in existence, at both local and national scales, such as the new Spatial Development Strategies and the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan. The land use framework should draw on these and provide a process through which they can all work together, especially in rural areas. One way to resolve these challenges is to see Defra’s framework as a starting point, rather than a finished product. A land use framework can be an incredibly powerful tool, but it’s also new and will need to develop

further as people employ its principles to make decisions and draw on its common store of evidence. It will also need updating over time, as the world we inhabit changes, and our national priorities change accordingly. What won’t change is that land will remain a precious and vital resource and we need a way of working together to optimise decisions made about it.

Sue Pritchard is the Chief Executive of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, Trustee of CoFarm Foundation and independent Governor at Royal Agricultural University. Living on an organic farm in Wales, Sue and her family raise livestock and farm for conservation.

Landscape Institute consultation response: Land use

In spring 2025, the government consulted on its vision for land use in England, with feedback helping to inform the development of a Land Use Framework.

The Landscape Institute advocates a holistic, integrated, multifunctional and well-informed approach to land management across all landscapes. We support a Land Use Framework that emphasises nature recovery, sustainable food production, and soil health, but have reservations about the proposed scale and nature of land use changes, which particularly focuses change on only 19% of agricultural land.

We disagree with a segregated approach as 1) all land is inherently multifunctional; 2) natural assets are interconnected; 3) broader societal benefits require a holistic consideration of all land. We advocate a multifunctional and mutualistic approach across the entire landscape, integrating nature recovery into all land management (including urban growth).

We support the Framework’s development, but it should incentivise land managers to adopt practices with multiple benefits, fostering synergies between environmental, social, and economic objectives, rather than a rigid, top-down approach. We also advocate a more integrated and multifunctional approach across the whole landscape, given our concerns about the proposed scale and categorisation of rural land.

Our key recommendations include:

– Universally apply land-use principles; all land should be included, ensuring that no area is excluded from potential benefits.

– Deliver strategic, landscapescale policies; we believe this is the most practical scale, reflecting underlying natural characteristics, rather than political boundaries. County, protected landscape, district and unitary authorities should collaborate at a sub-regional scale to deliver sustainable outcomes.

– Provide regulatory intervention to balance economic viability with environmental quality; the Framework should incentivise land managers to adopt practices with multiple benefits, fostering synergies between environmental, social, and economic objectives.

– Address resource and skills shortages; these include the landscape profession (landscape scientists, managers and architects), as well as planning, environment and forestry.

Scan here to read the government’s consultation and the Landscape Institute Policy & Public Affairs Committee response in full.

View from Scotland: Could the country’s best-laid biodiversity plans gang aft a-gley?

Scottish planning policy may aspire to enhance biodiversity through new housing development, but without clearer guidance, and enhanced green skills and resources in local authorities, it will fail to achieve either.

Scotland is a world leader in biodiversity preservation, on paper at least.

Documents such as 2023’s National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) say all the right things; however, to steal a tenuous biodiversity-related quote from Rabbie Burns, “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley, / An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain.” In other words: The best-laid plans often go awry.

The sad truth is those involved in development will experience stress

and anxiety, attempting to translate into practice. The problems are twofold:

1) Planning authorities are a mere semblance of their former selves, hollowed out by nearly two decades of austerity. They simply don’t have the capacity or bandwidth to translate noble ideals into practical advice to applicants – especially with very little, if any, in-house, dedicated ecological and landscape expertise to interpret any surveys received.

2) As yet, there is little approved guidance for NPF4, which makes practical interpretation difficult. In some cases, English guidance is being used as a stopgap measure, despite notable contextual differences.

In this vacuum, councils are playing it safe and requesting surveys as a default precursor to determining mitigation measures. However, collecting this data is expensive, often seasonal, and can throw projects months behind schedule –compounding and exacerbating other delays. Sadly, this means that fixing listed buildings, bringing derelict rural buildings back into use, or redeveloping brownfield sites becomes much riskier. Poorly targeted and disproportionate requests for surveys create significant extra hurdles to much-needed housing projects. Nor does this reactionary approach help to collect biodiversity

data in a strategic or coordinated way. This is why the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) has written to Ivan McKee MSP, the Scottish Government Minister responsible for planning, to highlight how well-intentioned biodiversity enhancement policies are creating a level of uncertainty that is highly detrimental. Nor is it clear, in the context of a housing emergency, where biodiversity goals rank if an otherwise viable project is badly delayed or ultimately abandoned. From the RIAS perspective, a biodiversityled system must start at the plan preparation and survey stage to reduce uncertainty and collect data at scale. Secondly, at a site level, nothing will really improve until Scotland’s hard-pressed planning system is properly resourced, including recruiting professionals with practical ecological and landscape expertise. Without a clearer route from policy to practice, Robert Burns’ closing words from ‘To a Mouse’ aptly sums things up on Scotland’s biodiversity efforts: “Backward cast my e’e, On prospects drear! An’ forward, tho’ I cannot see, I guess an’ fear!”

Stuart Hay is Head of Outreach at the Royal Incorporation of Architects Scotland.

1. Wheat field with thistles, Ayrshire.

© Stuart Hay

Stuart Hay

View from Wales: Learnings from the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act

Welsh law provides an indication of how planning can enhance both the wellbeing of current and future generations and GDP.

The UK government has set out its intent to rebuild Britain, raise living standards, build an NHS for the future, make streets safer, give children the best start in life and secure home-grown energy.1 The Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-25 aims to accelerate housing and infrastructure development by streamlining the planning process.

How can the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (the Act) help achieve this growth and support the UK government’s ambitions?

The Act placed the sustainable development principle into law2 to make it a central organising principle of government and public bodies across Wales. It is about improving the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of Wales and it requires the long-term impact of decisions and

trade-offs to be understood. This pioneering vision for Wales is expressed as seven ‘Wellbeing Goals’ (based on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals) and five ‘Ways of Working’ (Thinking for the long-term, Prevention, Integration, Collaboration and Involvement). These are principles that must be

demonstrated in decision making.³

The Planning, Environment and Historic Environment Acts⁴ embed the Future Generations Act’s sustainability principles and provide clarity on how to apply them.

There are three key insights we can take from the Act and its supporting framework:

Richard Sumner CMLI

1. Pembrokeshire Green Infrastructure Assessment (LUC) is underpinned by the seven goals included within the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act and was a finalist at the LI Awards 2023. © LUC

1 Plan for change

– Milestones for mission-led government, Welsh Assembly 5 December 2024

2 Davidson, J. (2020) Futuregen: Lessons from a Small Country Chelsea Green Publishing

3 The Ways of Working of The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015

4 The Planning Act (Wales) 2015; the Environment Act (Wales) 2016; the Historic Environment Act (Wales) 2023

5 Future Wales: the National Plan 2040 –to be read alongside Planning Policy Wales

6 Future Wales: the National Plan 2040 Policy 2 Shaping Urban Growth and Regeneration –Strategic Placemaking page 65

7 Future Wales: the National Plan 2040 Policy 9 –Resilient Ecological Networks and Green Infrastructure, page 76

Sustainability

Sustainability is not a barrier to decision-making. In Wales, the principle is imbedded across the full legislative framework and is the basis for decision-making within all areas of government and public bodies. It is a way of thinking, not a barrier to overcome.

Trade-offs and transparency

Sustainability requires a multi-capital approach. Social, environmental and cultural outcomes are to be explicitly considered alongside economic development. Thus, the tradeoffs from every decision are fully transparent. This supports a more coherent process that communities can contribute to and for which decision makers are held accountable.

Planning for clarity and certainty

Planning for the long term should not be confused with a lack of agility or speed. Having a strategic spatial plan with clear policies and principles for achieving it provides clarity, which improves certainty for the developer and investor, who are primarily interested in economic outcomes. It also gives communities, statutory consultees and planning authorities certainty that wider wellbeing, social and environmental interests are being given due consideration.

For example, Future Wales: The National Plan 2040⁵ sets out the Welsh government’s national framework for planning over the next two decades. Its spatial plan and policies provide intent. Policies for Shaping Urban Growth and Regeneration – Strategic Placemaking⁶ and Resilient Ecological Networks and Green Infrastructure⁷ are two examples of where planning for people, place and nature are positioned alongside planning for renewable energy, electricity and transport infrastructure.

The landscape profession

The Five Ways of Working will be familiar to landscape professionals. The very nature of our work requires us to think in different time and spatial scales to many other professions. We work with others by choice and necessity, our projects integrating

Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act

Ways of Working

Thinking for the long-term

To benefit today’s and future generations

Prevention

Acting early and with others

Integration

The Wellbeing Goals

A prosperous Wales

A resilient Wales

A healthier Wales

A more equal Wales

A Wales of more cohesive communities

A Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language

A globally responsible Wales

multiple objectives. Through the rigour in contextual analysis, spatial planning, design, technical skills and clear articulation, we present a vision and carve a place in development for people and nature. Our customers comprise not only the client employing us, but also the current and future generations that will benefit from the environments we have a hand in shaping.

Conclusions

The Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and supporting Acts required considerable dedication and time to come to fruition. What can the UK government’s growth agenda learn from it?

With foresight, intent and clarity, sustainability is not a barrier to decision-making or speed of delivery. Pre-emptive work is, however, necessary. Contextual analysis leads to optimising choices about location, scale and spatial form of development. Site planning and design principles then create places that realise the wellbeing of future generations.

The Five Ways of Working provide

Actions are shaped to complement the activities of others

Collaboration

Working with others so that as many objectives as possible can be met

Involvement

Involving as wide a range of people as possible in helping shape the decisions

a useful framework within which to develop and test policies, projects and plans for sustainability.

Trade-offs will happen. We know that without timely input and advocacy the opportunities to create places that serve both current and future generations can be weakened or missed. The profession needs to be prepared in its positioning, skills and team building. Through masterplanning solutions we can meet the developer’s, local community’s and planning authority’s aspirations.

Finaly, growth is more than about gross domestic product. Growth is about ensuring that development and the wellbeing of current and future generations are inseparable goals.

Richard Sumner CMLI is Natural Resources Wales’s Lead Specialist Advisor – Landscape, for the Designated Landscapes Programme and a member of the Landscape Institute Policy & Public Affairs Committee. The views expressed here are his own and not those of Natural Resources Wales.

Essential infrastructure: The role of nature across grey and green

The government’s ‘grey belt’ proposals show that while planning reforms could offer the potential for a strategic approach, whether nature is treated as essential or secondary to growth remains an unresolved issue.

Ian Mell AMLI

The UK government’s proposals to designate ‘grey belt’ as areas of growth has led to a heated debate over their potential to deliver new homes. There has been a related concern that by allowing development, rather than local council objectives, to lead what happens in grey belts,¹ the continuity of approach between grey and green infrastructure could be jeopardised. These debates have been further complicated

by the publication of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (March 2025). The bill calls for a renewed focus on regional spatial planning, and the creation of Nature Restoration Funds and Environment Development Plans to be led by Natural England, while ensuring that economic growth in the form of meeting housing targets is not compromised.

The promotion of this swathe of policy directives offers hope for the environment sector as it provides scope to plan strategically for nature. By linking the new proposals with Local Nature Recovery Strategies² and the National Green Infrastructure Standards Framework,³ the government is establishing the scaffolding to embed

1. House development construction site in progress, aerial view UK.

1 HM Government (2025) Guidance Grey Belt https://www. gov.uk/guidance/ green-belt, accessed 31 March 2025

2 Local Government Association (2025) Local Nature Recovery Strategies. https:// www.local.gov.uk/ pas/environment/ nature-recoverylocal-authorities/ local-nature-recoverystrategies, accessed 3 April 2025.

3 Natural England (2023) National Green Infrastructure Standards. https:// designatedsites. naturalengland.org.uk/ GreenInfrastructure/ GIStandards.aspx, accessed 31 March 2025

environmental thinking at the centre of planning. Moreover, the positives created via the 2021 Environment Act and its Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) legislation provide a process through which strategic planning for nature can be actioned.

However, concerns remain regarding how these legislative changes map onto the ongoing drive for economic and housing development. It could be argued that meeting the 1.5 million new homes housing target runs counter to effective environmental planning. Furthermore, the proposals for grey belt4 have generated significant interest within this debate, with various bodies arguing that they offer a meaningful way to identify sites for development on previously developed land (PDL), while others see them as a stealth mechanism to build on green belt land. Both can be simultaneously true, depending on whether you take a development or environmental conservationist perspective.

This focus on growth and speed of decision-making in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill potentially moves the conversation away from detailed assessments of environmental quality and function, and instead towards a process of grey infrastructurefirst development. The landscape profession should therefore ask whether this is a significant shift in

emphasis from the approaches to planning witnessed under successive governments between 2010 and 2024. The wording of the guidance associated with the bill suggests not, and that a nuanced approach to nature recovery may not be central to the government’s5 thinking. Instead, strategic planning for nature is proposed to replace more localised landscape-led thinking:

“To grow the economy and recover nature we need new tools and a new approach. We want to make better use of the millions of pounds that are spent each year on bespoke mitigation and compensation schemes, by using this money to fund strategic interventions that provide greater benefit for nature than the status quo. Through this approach we want to provide the necessary certainty for all parties that we will take consolidated, coordinated action to drive nature recovery whilst allowing vital development to come forward.”

While we might consider the proposed changes to be limited in how they locate nature in these discussions, there are potential areas of optimism. The presentation of grey belt as a mechanism to streamline debate regarding green belt development has merit. If grey belts are used strategically6 to deliver essential urban fringe and rural infrastructure, e.g. social housing7 or local amenities

(schools, transport hubs, medical facilities) rather than allowing wider development, then that could be seen as a positive. However, if grey belts morph into locations where ‘anything goes’ because brownfield land is being brought back into use, then protests will occur. Reflecting on what grey belts might mean within the planning reforms does however provide us with scope to consider (a) whether existing legislation is working and (b) how best to align these new proposals with existing planning structures.

First, the proposals for grey belt allow us to reconsider the value of green belt. Their sacrosanct position in UK planning policy has generated a polarised discourse of pro/anti-green belt rhetoric. Focusing on PDL and finding a renewed purpose for these spaces limits where development can be allocated, thus restricting incremental change in green belt and the associated arguments over release or protection. For those looking to protect the environment in its entirety, this offers some certainty in terms of where development can be located. However, it could also mean that planning restrictions, such as adherence to local character, could be undermined if grey belts are seen as development zones that are less constrained.

Second, the discussion of grey belt has, to some extent, reopened

4 How, where and what proportion of green belt/greenfield sites are designated as grey belt will be subject to local planning authority considerations. This may lead to differing views of how grey belt is identified and conflict over the conversion of green belt in grey. There could also be more emphasis placed on grey/green belt designations for LPAs in the south of England where the need for housing and other infrastructure is most prominent.

5 HM Government (2025). Guidance Factsheet: Nature Restoration Fund. https://www.gov. uk/government/ publications/ the-planning-andinfrastructure-bill/ factsheet-naturerestoration-fund accessed 31 March 2025

6 Mell, I. (2024) Belting up to deliver housing targets – are Grey Belts the answer? Policy@manchester blog. https://blog. policy.manchester. ac.uk/posts/2024/11/ belting-up-to-deliverhousing-targetsare-grey-belts-theanswer/, accessed 31st March 2025

7 Current policy suggests that government will require an additional 15% of social or affordable housing above the allocated number set out in local plans instead of the intended 50% increase. Housing Today (2024) NPPF: Government drops 50% affordable housing requirement for grey belt sites https://www. housingtoday. co.uk/news/ nppf-governmentdrops-50-affordablehousing-requirementfor-grey-beltsites/5133367.article, accessed 31 March 2025

2. Aerial view of a suburb, UK.

© iStock

8 See: Goode, CE (2025) The Green Belt, Housing Crises and Planning Systems. Routledge, Abingdon; and Sturzaker, J & Mell, I (2017) Green Belt: Past, Present, Future Routledge, Abingdon

9 Chapman, Tait & Postlethwaite (2024) Lost Nature

– Are housing developers delivering their ecological commitments? Wild Justice, https:// wildjustice.org.uk/ general/lost-naturereport/, accessed 31 March 2025

10 Mell, I & Scott, A (2023) Definitions of blue and green infrastructure. In: Washbourne, C & Wansbury, C (Eds.) The ICE Manuel of Blue Green Infrastructure, London. Pg. 3-22

a conversation as to whether a nationwide assessment of green belts, their function and fulfilment of their five core characteristics is overdue. Since green belts were first established in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act of 1938 and the subsequent 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, there has been a limited attempt to analyse the functionality and quality of green belts across the UK.⁸ With the introduction of the grey belt, the time may be right to consider such an evaluation to ensure that high-quality places are protected, to redesignate low-quality places and create new areas of green belt.

Third, if grey belts are to be designated, then a structure needs to be put in place to ensure that they are developed to complement the surrounding area. This would consider grey belt as a social good rather than as a facilitator of widescale development. Thus, grey belts could be designated only for social infrastructure – housing, education, or medical facilities – rather than being market driven. This would provide councils with specific locations to deliver much needed infrastructure but would need to be balanced with the need to allow development in other areas of the green belt. Both options may be unpopular with local people, local planning authorities and developers.

Fourth, whatever happens around the proposals for green belt, a more considered approach to mapping

the new legislation and guidance onto existing policy is needed. There is a concern, for example, that the complexity of delivering and monitoring BNG is leading to poor-quality landscape design and maintenance⁹ that is not aligned effectively with grey belt. These concerns increase if we start to explore how off-site mitigation may lead to poorer-quality developments when compared to on-site delivery. Moreover, how will the ongoing roll-out of Local Nature Recovery Strategies work with the proposals of the Nature Restoration Fund and what mechanisms are being instigated to ensure existing work is not usurped if the Secretary of State does not find the conservation measures favourable? There are also issues around Natural England to consider. For several years they have seen their budgets decrease, so what confidence is there that these new responsibilities can be delivered without a significant increase in funding and capacity to deliver the ambitious programme of work?

One way to roll up all these issues is by considering the natural environment as essential infrastructure¹⁰ and not simply as the location for development. If nature is given the same prominence as transport, housing and economic development, then the function of grey belts, Nature Restoration Funds and BNG becomes easier to administer, as conversation moves from being an either/or towards a ‘how do we deliver

all these forms of infrastructure?’. Framing nature as essential infrastructure provides scope to ensure that the focus of policy strives to maximise environmental quality while also delivering socio-economic infrastructure. However, if we take a ‘development first’ approach that relies on meeting housing targets, then the effectiveness of BNG, the focus of development in grey belts, or the delivery of Environment Development Plans may be fatally compromised.

The UK government’s attempt to align nature with development is admirable but they have potentially fallen into the trap of a ‘growth before all’ rhetoric. To some extent, this neglects the value of the natural environment and locates it as a second-tier form of infrastructure. While the Environment Act, BNG and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill make significant concessions to nature, there remain questions over whether the government is placing nature at the heart of development policy – as essential infrastructure. It therefore remains an opaque area that requires further discussion if we are to ensure that nature-led policy is both promoted and adhered to.

Ian Mell AMLI is Professor in Environmental and Landscape Planning in the Department of Planning, Property & Environmental Management, University of Manchester

The UK government’s attempt to align nature with development is admirable but they have potentially fallen into the trap of a ‘growth before all’ rhetoric.

3. Brownfield site Suffolk, UK.

Key characteristics

From Local Nature Recovery Strategies to Environmental

Outcomes Reports, local planning authorities must prioritise Landscape Character Assessment to help shape a vision for long-term positive change.

Louise Fitzgerald CMLI

Landscape is all around us and acts as an integrating framework that encompasses and embraces the interactions of natural, cultural, social, perceptual and aesthetic attributes. It is constantly changing and is the context for, and consequence of, decisionmaking – providing the spatial framework through which we plan and manage changes to the environment.

Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is one of the most prominent landscape assessment tools in the UK planning system. First emerging in the early 1990s, LCA was designed “to be a framework for helping to incorporate the rich heritage of landscape diversity into present day decisions….”. An understanding of landscape character provides baseline evidence to inform land use planning, design and land management and is a crucial tool in managing and conserving the distinctiveness of landscapes.

The approach to LCA has shifted in recent years towards a more integrated approach that provides a holistic, ‘joined-up’ approach that considers visual, historic and ecological aspects of the landscape equally.

The need to incorporate landscape considerations into environmental decision-making has long been recognised but is now more urgent than ever. Climate change, biodiversity loss, evolving environmental policies and the government’s target to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 all

place increasing pressure on our landscapes.

Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) were introduced in the Environment Act 2021 and propose how and where to recover nature and improve the wider environment across England. National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been identified as being particularly suitable areas for nature recovery. LNRS could adopt a LCA approach, with the results used to help identify areas suitable for targeted habitat restoration and biodiversity enhancement initiatives. This approach has already been used in North Northamptonshire, where LCA has been used to inform the design and priorities of LNRS. This approach strengthens local identity and sense of place to provide nature recovery that supports the distinctive characteristics of the area.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act was enacted in October 2023 and introduced a new form of environmental assessment known as Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs). Its aim is to streamline the process of environmental assessment by focusing on measuring environmental effects and assessing

The need to incorporate landscape considerations into environmental decision-making has long been recognised but is now more urgent than ever.

how a project will contribute to specific environmental goals set out by the government. While there has been little progress on the move towards EORs to date, the December 2024 Development and Nature Recovery working paper confirms that there are plans to advance their implementation and adopt a more ‘strategic approach’ to development.

The suggested move towards EORs, with more emphasis on meeting objectives, implies there will be clear existing baselines from which to make assessments and measure progress. The Landscape Institute’s volunteer-led Landscape Character Assessment Database project highlights disparities in the scale, age and level of detail contained within existing LCA documents. This complicates the description and evaluation of landscape character, leading to an inconsistent approach to landscape planning and management across different scales and between

authorities. Local planning authorities without an up-to-date LCA should prioritise updating these ahead of the implementation of EORs. This is further reinforced by the plan-making Planning Practice Guidance (updated February 2025) that states: “All planning policies and decisions need to be based on up-to-date information about the natural environment and other characteristics of the area.”

Under the new approach, planning decisions will be informed by how projects respond to environmental objectives. Exactly how these objectives are set, and at what level, is currently unclear, and in areas without a current LCA this is likely to pose a particular challenge.

Monitoring will be required to verify whether the effects of a development on the environment are as predicted

Under the new approach, planning decisions will be informed by how projects respond to environmental objectives.

2. Hedge planting.

in the EOR. This is likely to present further challenges, and it is unclear whether it will be the local planning authority or developer who will be responsible for monitoring.

In 2024 Natural England introduced a composite indicator to assess changes in landscape and waterscape character. This tool measures changes in the physical, visual, cultural and experiential qualities of England’s 159 National Character Areas and provides a framework for evaluating how well these areas are achieving key outcomes.

While some outcomes are easily measurable (e.g. area of woodland planted), many important aspects of landscape character (e.g. associations, sight, smell and sound) are perceptual and therefore not easily measured. The importance of people’s perception of landscape is emphasised by the European Landscape Convention, which defines landscape as “…an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”.

Looking ahead, the most valuable LCAs will be those that account for the dynamic nature of landscapes and consider future forces for change. In the context of climate change and the biodiversity emergency there is a need to move away from objectives that aim to conserve and enhance the landscape and instead to consider the opportunities for creating new landscapes. There is potential for LCA to adopt a more dynamic baseline,

recognising that landscapes are not fixed and could change more rapidly than they have in the past. LCAs can support nature recovery by identifying opportunities for habitat creation, restoration and connectivity across character areas, and an integrated approach could also consider how landscapes might deliver multiple ecosystem services. The integration of climate change scenarios and consideration of how landscapes may alter can also help to inform future land management guidelines.

As the planning system seeks to balance development with environmental sustainability, landscape-led approaches should play a fundamental role in shaping the

As the planning system seeks to balance development with environmental sustainability, landscape-led approaches should play a fundamental role in shaping the future.

future. Rather than only being seen as part of the evidence base, or as a tool to restrict change, LCA can be used to shape the vision for long-term change.

To achieve this, greater education and awareness around LCA across the environmental sector is urgently required. A consistent and holistic approach at all scales would provide a robust baseline to underpin the landscape assessment and monitoring that is required to address the climate and biodiversity emergencies.

Louise Fitzgerald CMLI is an Associate at The Environment Partnership (TEP)

4. Lowland meadows.

All voices must be heard

As planning teeters on the edge of potentially seismic reform, what role will communities play in shaping new development, and what impact will this have on nature, landscape and place?

Paul Connelly

Twenty-five years ago, the Blair government resolved to build on brownfield sites to revitalise ailing urban areas and strengthen deprived communities. Planning was a tool for structuring growth, transforming market conditions and delivering economic resilience, forging community cohesion and social wellbeing and enhancing the environment. The approach was bold and optimistic.

Local communities were closely involved: through design charrettes, school workshops, street parties and development ‘role play’ exercises. The aim was to achieve positive change for localities through an ‘urban renaissance’.

The 2008 financial crisis and coalition government brought everything to a halt. The subsequent over-reliance on the private sector and the lack of planning for strategic growth has resulted in more piecemeal development. There has also been less meaningful engagement, with communities increasingly seen as a problem rather than enablers of positive change.

Months into a new government and there’s renewed ambition for growth, brought about by planning reform that is focused on higher-tier plan-making, strategic environmental mitigation and fast-tracked delivery. So, what does this mean for community involvement? So far, there have been early alarm bells, with ministers warning that neither democracy nor nature should get in the way of growth. The stated intention to remove the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects will speed up a process that currently takes far too long. Will it also cut local people out of the early stages or allow for engagement to be managed in a less restrictive way?

It is true that most design and planning professionals share the government’s frustration with the way that minor issues can be misunderstood or misrepresented and used to stall development that could otherwise benefit a locality. But that does not mean community engagement should be restricted or dismissed. Indeed, the time has come to not only recognise its value again, but resource its expansion as well.

What is needed now is an increased focus on the widest positive impacts that can be achieved through well-planned and designed growth that works with, and for, nature, landscape, community and the economy. Involving communities is as important as ever to getting good things done.

A large part of the planner’s role is knowledge sharing, to foster well-informed opinions. This includes helping people to understand planning processes, so they start to ask the right questions about any proposal on the table. Is it upholding the development principles? Does it meet the design code? How can investment in growth protect and enhance local assets? Then people can see which aspects of a proposal are not negotiable and where the opportunities lie. All this moves everyone far beyond simply discussing the principle of development and basic mitigation. And none of this need delay growth.

The proposed planning reforms provide an opportunity to be bold and optimistic again, re-establishing the roles of planning and design in delivering not just development, but also development that brings about the changes we need to see for communities, our economy and the environment. This includes a more strategic approach to environmental delivery, and the emerging prospect of a coordinated National Spatial Plan, which would incorporate an understanding of land assets to organise growth and inform Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs).

The SDSs will set the agenda for growth and strategic environmental delivery, and the redevelopment of brownfield sites may be simplified to enable faster delivery. Both represent

The proposed planning reforms provide an opportunity to be bold and optimistic again

opportunities to spark crosscommunity conversations about the type of place, infrastructure and natural environment needed in the future. Run well, with adequate funding, SDSs and brownfield strategies should provide impetus and scope for local people to positively influence the agenda, acquire an improved understanding and reduce adverse reactions to subsequent local plan and planning applications.

One thing is clear. We must keep lobbying hard for all voices to be heard. Large-scale development and urban regeneration often take decades to come to fruition. We therefore need to understand and factor in the needs and aspirations of local children and teenagers, young professionals, and young families in particular.

This should go hand-in-hand with encouraging community asset stewardship, which at its best is socially responsible, environmentally aware and highly entrepreneurial. When community organisations take on this role, they are often far more entrepreneurial than traditional management companies, accessing new sources of funding and reinvesting profits. The Chichester Community Development Trust1 is a great example and a community asset in its own right. Clearly, community engagement and taking people on the development journey is critical to good-quality placemaking and better environmental management. Far from being the blockers to development, local people hold the secrets of a place, what makes it special and what will help to deliver its best future life. We need to trust them and hear their views.

Paul Connelly is Director of Planning and Regeneration at LDA Design

1 https://chichestercdt.org.uk

New Towns revisited: Opportunities for the new communities of tomorrow

1 Henderson, K., Lock, K., & Ellis, H. (2017) The Art of Building a Garden City: Designing New Communities for the 21st Century RIBA Publishing.

2 Henderson, K., Lock, K., & Ellis, H. (2017) The Art of Building a Garden City: Designing New Communities for the 21st Century RIBA Publishing.

3 Henderson, K., Lock, K., & Ellis, H. (2017) The Art of Building a Garden City: Designing New Communities for the 21st Century RIBA Publishing.

4 Lock, K., & Ellis, H. (2020) New Towns: Rise, Fall, Rebirth RIBA Publishing.

5 Lock, K., & Ellis, H. (2020) New Towns: Rise, Fall, Rebirth RIBA Publishing.

The history of new towns echoes from the Garden City movement of the 19th-century to a new generation of settlements promised by today’s Labour government. What can this history tell us about how to go about building such complex and ambitious town planning projects today?

Charlotte Llewellyn

As one of the many young people struggling to afford a place of my own to call home, the prospect of new towns is exciting. Will they be ambitious and seek to provide the next generation with the opportunity to live in a thriving new community, with people and the planet at their heart?

The 20th Century New Towns programme was the most ambitious act of town planning the UK has ever undertaken. The roots of the post-war new towns can be traced back further to the Garden City movement and the British utopian tradition, which dealt with complex political issues, such as land reform and democracy, through the illustration of ideal places.¹ It was in this tradition that the idea of the garden city came about.²

The garden city concept was first set out by Ebenezer Howard in his seminal book Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. In his book, Howard outlined his vision for a social city that drew together the benefits of town and country life, financed through

the capture of land value uplift which would then be reinvested back into the community.³

The New Towns programme emerged from these traditions in the post-war period, when Britain faced a complex socioeconomic situation, including large expanses of poorquality and bomb-damaged housing.⁴

The new towns were part of Clement Attlee’s vision for the reconstruction of post-war Britain. Development corporations were the cornerstone for the delivery of new towns, with their plan-making, development management and ownership powers making them an effective delivery mechanism.⁵

Due to changes in political consensus and the growing prominence of the neoliberal agenda in the 1980s, the new town development corporations were prematurely wound up and their assets sold off to the private sector or transferred to local authorities. For many local authorities, the assets they were given (including green infrastructure) became liabilities as they did not have adequate funding to maintain them.⁶

Reflections from new town residents, such as Kathleen Baker from Stevenage, show the fondness with which those living in the new towns held their experience: “Despite mistakes, I feel that new town life presents a way of living that, with a little effort, can be friendly, pleasant, and beneﬁcial, and I like to think that my own years in a new town are some of the happiest I have known.”⁷

21st-century new towns

Much like the post-war new towns, the next generation of new towns is taking shape in a complex and challenging environment marred by a plethora of crises, from the rising cost of living to the ecological emergency. The planning and delivery of new towns is arguably the most explicit form of town planning any government can undertake.

Despite this, the current Labour government has positioned planning as a barrier to housing delivery and, subsequently, to its aim of delivering GDP growth. Yet, as the Town and Country Planning Association’s (TCPA)

White Paper articulated, the planning sector is not the source of the slow delivery of housing. This problem has arisen due to decades of underprovision of socially rented homes, combined with the economic model of volume housebuilders, which means

housebuilding is not keeping pace with planning consents.⁸

The proposed next generation of new towns sits within a broader picture of planning reform being undertaken by the Labour government, from the revised National Planning Policy Framework to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The bill offers the exciting prospect of the resurrection of regional planning in England, which could signal a more joined-up and strategic approach to large-scale housing and infrastructure delivery.⁹ Yet more could still be done to tackle climate change and further embed community participation and democracy into the English planning system.

The new town opportunity

The delivery of a future generation of new towns offers a unique opportunity to create housing that exemplifies best practices in the 21st century. Britain has over 125 years of learning around the delivery of new communities from which this next generation of new towns must draw.

The new towns offer a chance to be ambitious and world-leading in considering what a new community should look and feel like in the present day. New towns and housing delivery are much more than a mechanism for GDP growth. They are about enabling people to live thriving lives in a healthy and prosperous neighbourhood. They are about making people’s lives easier, healthier, and more joyful.

As argued by feminist geographer

New towns and housing delivery are much more than a mechanism for GDP growth. They are about enabling people to live thriving lives in a

6 Lock, K., & Ellis, H. (2020) New Towns: Rise, Fall, Rebirth RIBA Publishing.

7 Mitchell, E, Denington, E, Pitt, G, & Baker, K (1968) ‘The ladies join in’, Town and Country Planning: https://tcpa.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/ 2021/11tcpaforgotten pioneers.pdf

8 https://www.tcpa.org. uk/resources/ourshared-future-a-tcpawhite-paper-forhomes-andcommunities/

9 https://www.england. nhs.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2019/09/ phip-2-design-delivermanage.pdf

10 Darke, J (1996) The man-shaped city, in Changing Places: Women's Lives in the City, eds. Booth, C, Darke, J, & Yeandle, S, Sage, p88

11 https://www. england.nhs.uk/ wp-content/ uploads/2019/09/ phip-2-designdeliver-manage.pdf

12 https://www.gov.uk/ government/ publications/policy-s tatement-on-newtowns/policystatement-on-newtowns

13 https://publications. parliament.uk/pa/ bills/cbill/59-01/0196/ 240196.pdf

14 https://ebbsfleet gardencity.org.uk/ wp-content/ uploads/2025/ 03/ResidentSatisfaction-SurveyResults-small-PDF.pdf

What do we want the next generations of new town residents to say about us?

Jane Darke: ”Any settlement is an inscription in space of the social relations in the society that built it.”¹⁰ What do we want the next generations of new town residents to say about us?

What should a new town include, and how should we build them?

stewardship, well-connectedness and environmental sustainability, to name a few.16 Many of these reflect ideas incorporated in the TCPA’s Health, Hope, and Prosperity: A Vision for Healthy New Towns, as well as lessons from previous generations of new large-scale development.17

15 https://www.gov.uk/ government/ publications/policystatement-onnew-towns/policystatement-on-newtowns

16 https://www.gov.uk/ government/ publications/buildingnew-towns-forthe-future

17 https://www.tcpa. org.uk/resources/ health-hope-andprosperity-a-visionfor-healthy-newtowns/

18 https://www.tcpa. org.uk/resources/ delivering-floodresilience-throughthe-planning-systemin-england/

19 https://www.tcpa. org.uk/resources/ health-hope-andprosperity-a-visionfor-healthy-newtowns/

20 https://www.tcpa. org.uk/resources/ unlocking-thepotential-oflarge-scale-newcommunities/

21 https://www.tcpa. org.uk/resources/ from-patchworkto-tapestryovercoming-barriersto-planning-for-longterm-stewardshipin-existingcommunities/

Labour’s proposed new towns are anticipated to be a mixture of standalone communities and extensions to existing settlements. In either case, existing residents will need to be consulted and proactively engaged with. New developments can be an opportunity to provide existing communities with new or improved services and infrastructure, as exemplified by the development at Whitehill and Bordon, which provided new greenspace for all residents.¹¹

The government’s policy statement also indicates that any proposed new towns will comprise a minimum of 10,000 homes.¹² The use of development corporations is essential to effectively deliver this size of community. The TCPA has long argued for the modernisation of development corporations, and there are provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that support this.¹³

However, modernised development corporations must do more to engage with both the existing and new residents of new towns. While not a new town development corporation, there is much that can be learned from Ebbsfleet Development Corporation’s approach to civic engagement.¹⁴

Both the Labour government and the New Towns Taskforce (NTT) have said that the new towns will be “exemplary developments”.¹⁵

The (NTT) sets out ten high-level principles for what a new town should include: incorporating healthy and safe communities, long-term

However, the devil is in the detail. For these principles to play out in practice, the government needs to ensure that future generations of new towns are required to meet high standards and best practices and that these aren’t treated as ‘nice-to-haves’ in a rush to build houses. Additionally, TCPA research has demonstrated the necessity of strong and accountable statutory bodies with the authority, capacity and skills to hold developers and volume housebuilders to account, especially relating to flood risk.18

Challenges: from planning to delivery to management

The planning and delivery of new towns is incredibly complex and political. Learnings from the postwar new towns and the new largescale developments currently being delivered showcase some of the challenges on the road ahead.

–

Political consensus: New towns take decades to plan and build out, requiring long-term political commitment at both a local and a national level. We must learn the lessons from the premature winding-up of new town development corporations in the 1980s, which left many post-war new towns with complex land ownership arrangements and a lack of revenue to reinvest in their renewal.¹⁹

– Skills and capacity: The planning and delivery of new towns is incredibly complex. Evidence from the TCPA’s New Communities Group has highlighted the lack of skills and capacity among local authority officers and elected members to adequately support the delivery of a new community.²⁰

– Delivery of infrastructure: There are countless examples of new developments being left without key community infrastructure;

this significantly impacts the local community and further erodes public trust in the planning system. At present, Section 106 agreements are primarily used to fund infrastructure. However, as they are often paid after the commencement of development, this approach limits the extent to which infrastructure can be delivered upfront.

– Long-term stewardship: At present, many new developments use management companies as their long-term stewardship bodies. However, there are increasing concerns regarding inconsistent service standards and a lack of transparency and engagement with the communities they serve.²¹ Consideration must be given to the long-term stewardship arrangements of new towns as soon as possible.

In conclusion, new towns offer a real opportunity to create new communities where everyone can thrive – economically, socially and environmentally. The planning and delivery of new towns requires everyone, from planners and landscape architects to builders and community workers, to work together.

Charlotte Llewellyn is the Osborn Research Assistant at the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), supporting its work on garden cities and new towns.

4. Steelman statue in front of Corby Cube.

Landscape as civic infrastructure

A University of Sheffield landscape architecture student uses a design project to reframe the housing crisis in landscape terms

Liv Brock

As the UK grapples with a deepening housing crisis, national policy continues to emphasise quantity over quality, prioritising numeric targets over liveability, environmental integrity, and long-term public health. A landscape-led approach offers a powerful alternative: one that integrates housing delivery with climate mitigation, nature recovery, and socially inclusive urban regeneration.

The Sluice Quarters is a third-year hypothetical design project I completed in 2025 at the University of Sheffield, responding to this very challenge. Set on a 4-hectare brownfield site fronting the River Don, the proposal reimagines a former industrial area as a vibrant, affordable and enduring residential neighbourhood. The design delivers 381 modular homes supported by a network of streetscapes, shared courtyards, and green infrastructure that prioritise movement, encounter and wellbeing.

The project proposes a shift away from high-rise, profit-led housing models and instead explores more socially and environmentally responsive forms of development. The structure of streets and courtyards is not just

circulation space: it is the social and ecological heart of the scheme. These ‘outdoor rooms’ support everyday physical activity, neighbourly exchange, biodiversity, and long-term adaptability, while helping buffer environmental and urban challenges such as flooding and traffic. Construction methods and environmental design are equally considered. The use of off-site manufactured timber systems enables faster, lower-carbon construction, while green roofs, rainwater strategies, and biodiverse planting contribute to climate resilience and biodiversity net gain. Crucially, each element is conceived as part of an integrated landscape system rather than decorative surplus.

The Sluice Quarters challenges the assumption that high quality and high

delivery are incompatible. By placing landscape at the core of the design process, it reframes housing not as a static commodity, but as adaptable civic infrastructure, capable of fostering equity, improving health, and restoring ecosystems. In a time when the debate around housing is dominated by crisis rhetoric, this landscape-led approach offers a hopeful, grounded alternative: a blueprint for building places where people can truly thrive.

Liv Brock is a third-year landscape architecture student at the University of Sheffield and is embarking on a placement year with Stantec in 2025–26.

Courtyards for

Introducing our new Standing Committees

Introducing the LI’s four new Standing Committees, putting members at the heart of our work.

The Landscape Institute (LI) is delighted to celebrate the successful recruitment of a talented cohort of members to its four new Standing Committees, following a diligent recruitment process. With a diverse range of high-quality applicants, the intake of new members strengthens the Institute’s commitment to member-led governance and strategic development.

The new Standing Committees put members at the heart of the LI’s work, shaping the future of the profession and collaborating to oversee and facilitate much of our member- and external-facing work. After a successful recruitment campaign, we are delighted to present our four new committees, representing the breadth of the landscape profession. We are thrilled by the very high calibre of professionals who stepped forward to join our Standing Committees. Their expertise and passion will be invaluable in shaping the future of the profession.

If you are interested in contributing, look out for future rounds of recruitment, or consider contributing to a Task & Finish group or our CPD programme. Get in touch at events@landscapeinstitute.org.

Policy & Public Affairs Committee

Ian Phillips CMLI MRTPI Chair

The Policy and Public Affairs (PPA) Committee aims to focus the expertise and experience of its members and Institute staff in raising the profile and influence of the Institute and its policy objectives with key decision makers and actors, particularly in government. It builds on the legacy of the Policy & Communications Committee and I am pleased to have welcomed several new members who have extended the new Committee’s capabilities and connections. The committee identifies and prioritises issues on which the Institute should lead and works with partners and third parties on issues of shared concern and interest. It liaises with other LI standing committees and

maintains a close relationship with the LI marketing and communications team. We know that landscape professionals contribute wideranging skills and services that can meet and successfully address the ongoing tensions between developmental growth, the natural environment and civil society. We aim, through the work of the PPA Committee, to promote a wider awareness of the importance of good landscape and of LI members’ ability to resolve complex challenges in ways that will be valued by all concerned.

Members

Ian Phillips (Chair)

Marc Tomes

Annie Coombs

Richard Copas

Luke Engleback

Ian Houlston

Anastasia Nikologianni

Richard Sumner

Andrew Smith

Chris Fairbrother

Scarlett Towse

Simon Bell

Knowledge & Practice Committee

Jane Findlay

FLI PPLI, Interim Chair

The role of the Knowledge & Practice (K&P) Committee is to inform and assist with development and dissemination of technical guidance and best practice on landscape issues, to inform the knowledge and practice of members and the wider profession, and to oversee the LI’s influence on technical landscape matters.

The committee promotes an evidence-based ethos within the landscape profession and members will ensure the full range of expert input is sought from across and beyond the membership to address and promote best practice.

As Interim Chair, I’m excited to see such a diverse and committed group of members coming together to help shape the technical direction of our profession. Our focus is firmly on supporting members with robust, relevant guidance rooted in real-world practice. We’re revitalising the Task & Finish groups to reflect current priorities – from Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA), and

Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) modelling, to climate resilience, carbon, soils, and plant biosecurity – ensuring that our technical work is rigorous, responsive, and future-focused.

Members

Jane Findlay (Interim Chair)

Joe Robson

Carly Tinkler

Jon Rooney

Lucy Elphick Jenkins

Thomas Yunqing Bai

Paul Reynolds

Mirna Joanna Melki

Michael Shilton

Heather Simeonov

Membership & Professional Standards Committee

Mark Smeeden CMLI, Chair

The MPS Committee plays a key role in driving high standards in the landscape profession, monitoring and ensuring compliance against the Institute’s professional standards, providing strategic oversight to ensure a highquality profession, and growing membership in inclusive and equitable ways. This committee oversees the development of

all routes to LI membership ensuring that the membership proposition is fit for purpose and monitored and communicated effectively.

It provides guidance and oversight supporting the development and strengthening of Branches, and will be involved in the Branch review. In concert with our work with Branches, we are also required to consider how volunteers can be recruited, retained and supported and will be reviewing the member satisfaction survey to guide us.

The committee is chaired ex officio by the Honorary Secretary, who is a member of the Board of Trustees and also of the Council. We are building the committee and would welcome any application to join us, and to aid representation,

we would particularly welcome applications from members who are working in any of the devolved nations.

Members

Mark Smeeden (Chair)

Vanessa Ross (Vice Chair)

Nick Harrison

Lucy Marshall

James Brisco

Carol Ann Newell

Education & Careers Committee

Chris House CMLI, Chair

The Education & Careers (E&C) Committee plays a vital role in supporting the Institute’s work to promote the landscape profession as a career of choice, and in ensuring that traditional and alternative routes in to the profession meet the highest

standards and are relevant, robust and adaptable to a fastchanging world. The committee supports the development and delivery of an education and careers strategy, and leads the LI’s strategic engagement with university and academic partners, including the accreditation of courses.

Education is vital to our profession, and with universities increasingly under financial pressure, it is essential that we support them by providing a clear career focus. The LI will continue to work with educational institutes to look at

Interested in contributing?

Join a Task & Finish group to support the work of the committees and our CPD programme. We’d love to hear from you if you are an expert in:

alternative routes into the profession in order that we remain diverse and inclusive.

Members

Chris House (Chair)

Jonathan Emery (Vice Chair)

Kristoff Fatsar

Rachel Cox

Alistair Kratt

Usue Ruiz-Arana

Anna Rhodes

Marko Yao Chung

Kenny Fraser

Robyn Friesner

health, biosecurity) | Visualisation, Photography, photomontages, mapping, GIS systems | And so much more…

Get in touch at events@landscapeinstitute.org

How a landscape-led approach is essential for people, place and nature

LI President, Carolin Göhler FLI, looks ahead to the future of the landscape profession, with the launch of our landscape-led briefing and corporate strategy.

Carolin Göhler FLI

As the UK braces for seismic planning reforms, it has been a privilege to see the profession step confidently into the spotlight in recent weeks. At UKREiiF in May, we launched our briefing, ‘Maximising value from built development: How a landscapeled approach is essential for people, place and nature’. The briefing showcases the value of a holistic, integrated approach to development, advocating for early and meaningful involvement of landscape professionals in shaping sustainable, resilient places

This moment marked more than a launch. It was the result of months of collaborative work across our membership. The insight and input of LI members were instrumental in shaping the vision and messages behind the document, ensuring that it reflects the realities and aspirations of our diverse profession. I extend my sincere thanks to everyone who contributed, and look forward to guest editing the next edition of the Journal, which will cover the briefing in more detail and continue the conversation.

As I write, we are preparing to launch the LI’s new corporate strategy – another major milestone for our Institute and the profession. Developed in collaboration with members across the UK nations, the strategy sets a bold direction for the next five years and beyond.

At its heart is a clear and ambitious vision: a world with enriching, resilient landscapes where people and nature flourish. This is underpinned by a refined purpose: that through the art and science of landscape design, planning and management, we deliver wellbeing, sustainability and delight, by enhancing and connecting people, place and nature

Three strategic outcomes define our path to 2030: – Landscape-led approaches are recognised as essential to deliver sustainable solutions to societal needs.

–

Landscape professionals of today and tomorrow work to the highest professional standards, with the expert skills and knowledge needed to design, plan, and manage landscapes that enhance quality of life.

– The Landscape Institute defines and nurtures an inclusive, trusted community of professionals who lead positive change now and for the future.

This strategy, which we’ll present fully in the next edition of the Journal, is the product of collective effort. Consultations, workshops, and

individual feedback helped to shape a plan that is grounded in the needs and ambitions of our members. Thank you once again to all who contributed your time, expertise, and energy.

Visit landscapeinstitute.org to discover more about the landscape-led briefing and our new corporate strategy.

LI Campus

Exploring the capabilities of Vectorworks’ AI Visualizer in landscape design

The Vectorworks AI Visualizer is an innovative tool that integrates artificial intelligence into the landscape design visualisation process, enabling landscape architects and designers to generate photorealistic images in real time. Built on advanced generative AI and machine learning models, it utilises the capabilities of Vectorworks Cloud Services and transforms simple 3D scenes or sketches into fully rendered visuals with natural lighting, materials, and environmental context. Unlike traditional rendering engines that require manual lighting configuration, Renderworks Cameras, and Renderworks Styles, the AI Visualizer streamlines this with minimal manual input and delivers high-quality images.

Vectorworks’ AI Visualizer offers powerful capabilities that enhance the landscape design process with speed and flexibility. It enables rapid generation of hardscape textures, symbology, and other visual assets that can be used for production of silhouettes or 3D representation of plants. From your design inputs and with specified styles, you can effortlessly produce contextual visuals for your landscape projects. The tool supports a variety of visualisation styles from conceptual to photorealistic renders, making it ideal for both early-

stage ideation and final presentation. Seamlessly integrated into Vectorworks’ workflow, it eliminates the need for third-party software or complex rendering setups.

Awaiting content

Using AI Visualizer can enhance your creativity and boost productivity. Site plans and 3D models can quickly be transformed into renderings that showcase planting schemes in various seasons, lighting effects or hard landscape material options. This rapid visualisation capability helps clients better understand design intent and fosters faster decision-making. The AI tools, like the AI Visualizer, support experimentation with various styles and environmental conditions, enabling landscape designers to explore different aesthetic approaches instantly. Integrated directly within Vectorworks, it streamlines the entire concept of design-to-client presentation workflow, saving you time

while improving the quality of landscape proposals.

Accessing the tool is a straightforward process: start by opening your 3D model in Vectorworks, connect to Cloud Services, and navigate to the AI Visualizer feature. With just a few clicks, select the desired graphical style, such as photorealistic, artistic or sketchy, type in the prompt and choose key parameters such as creativity. The AI Visualizer then generates visuals based on your input, allowing you to preview and refine design details in real time. You can save and share the outcomes in Vectorworks for future publishing purposes or as standalone images for mood boards and client presentations.

Learn more about the power of the AI Visualizer and boost your creativity and efficiency at vectorworks.net/ en-US/newsroom/ai-visualizer.

1. Image created using prompts focusing on high realism, pedestrians, and high level of detail.

Commercial Stone & Paving for Inspirational Spaces

enq@hardscape.co.uk 01204 565 500

Cheadle Square, Bolton

Hardscape supplied Holcombe sandstone paving, European granite benches with hardwood timber seating with custom bronze inlays, expertly embellished at Hardscape Surfaces.

Client Team : Bolton Council, Bolton at Home and Step Places

Design Team : TPM Landscape, AEDI Construction Ltd and Thomas Contracting