Associate Professor Hannah Hickman (UWE Bristol) critiques the Labour Government’s narrow focus on economic growth in planning reform, arguing for a broader narrative that prioritises urban retrofit and the wider societal benefits of planning.

I was immediately frustrated by the repeated statements that rapidly emerged from the incoming Labour Government following Labour’s election victory in 2024 that put planning and growth facilitation, namely economic growth, front and centre of its reform agenda, this being just one example of many:

“The Government has made clear that sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people … Nowhere is decisive reform needed more urgently than in our planning system”

(MHCLG 2024).

So why was I particularly irked, given that, firstly, many voices have hailed the profile given to planning in the Government’s reform agenda (and not just the ‘usual suspects’ set to benefit from the theoretical building boom that is intended to follow, see RTPI 2024), and, secondly ascribing an economic growth focus to planning is of course, neither new, nor a particular surprise. Indeed, many planning scholars have written engagingly about the growth fixation “inscribed in planning instruments” and “the often‐unquestioned growth bias in spatial planning that is institutionalized at all scales of land‐use planning” (Lamker 2024).

It was the lack of a wider accompanying narrative that bothered me, both about what growth, as the espoused “number one mission of the Government” (Prime Minister’s Office 2025), is trying to achieve and about any wider articulation of the purposes of planning beyond growth facilitation. This led me to reflect upon what this latest emphasis on the growth focus of planning might mean for urban retrofit and for the wider definition and perception of planning more broadly.

Turning firstly to urban retrofit. The compatibility of this with the Government’s agenda for growth depends on how growth is defined and pursued. There are opportunities for alignment hinted at within this Government’s emerging policy and legislation that would support intensification and adaptation, particularly building high-density homes close to existing railway stations, and an emphasis on unlocking housing on brownfield land, although there is nothing new or radical here.

But there are potential conflicts too. Retrofit rarely involves a blank slate or – more appositely – a green field. Care, attention and – critically – time are needed to deal with the complexity of existing uses and sites. If ‘growth’, followed closely by ‘increased speed’ (another predominant reform refrain), are prioritised then this may lead to decision making which favours the less complex development opportunities – seeing green fields (at the larger scale) or building demolition (at the site level) as quicker economic stimuli, sidelining retrofit initiatives that may be seen as slower or more complex. Here, the Government’s plans to accelerate housing delivery through the modernisation of green belt policy and a new generation of new towns lean towards the more radical in terms of emphasis, and suggest an appetite for all kinds of development rather than a spatial hierarchy of development which starts with retrofit.

Importantly, these are not just hypothetical conflicts, these are conflicts that are being realised in practice. Recent planning decisions, including the high-profile case of the redevelopment of Marks & Spencer on London’s Oxford Street (see Simons, 2024), show how difficult favouring retrofit can be in the context of planning balance, with other factors – particularly the urgent need for new homes (undeniable) – often prioritised over measures that support retrofit, particularly when their viability is called into question by the development industry (see UK Parliament 2021).  

Can these agendas be compatible? Perhaps, but only if the Government’s current narrative provides for nuance in how growth is defined and pursued, and in so doing, gives a clear sense of priority around adaptation that enables deep engagement with how to make retrofit really work (including on viability), and incentivises the kinds of behaviours that will support it.

This links directly to my second frustration: the lack of narrative from Government about what planning is for and its positive role, and here I am with the RTPI in calling for the statutory purpose of planning in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (see RTPI 2025).

Planning has become an activity that ‘dare not speak its name’, an activity far too widely associated with frustration, opposition and tension (see Grange 2017). In making planning both part of the growth problem and the growth solution, Government has simultaneously villainised planning and framed planning in a one-dimensional way. This neither addresses the negative perceptions of planning, nor advocates for planning as a set of activities in the public interest focused on ambitious place-making, community building, and – importantly in the context of urban retrofit – as a critical activity in support of climate action and net zero.

An astute colleague said to me last week, “isn’t retrofit really just a synonym for good planning? Planning has always been about re-making place”.

In this project, we are starting with the compelling language of urban retrofit to make its case. However, if we can re-inculcate a more positive narrative of planning, then perhaps we won’t need the terminology of urban retrofit and can instead just revert to the language of good planning.  Without this shift, there’s a risk that the emphasis on growth will drive policy and decision making that favours the ‘quick’ (however much this is a misguided misnomer) over the ‘adaptive’.

References

Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (2024). Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

Lamker, C. and Terfrüchte, T., (2024). Post-growth ambitions and growth-based realities in sustainable land-use planning. Urban Planning, 9, 1-16.

Grange, K., 2017. Planners–A silenced profession? The politicisation of planning and the need for fearless speech. Planning Theory, 16 (3), 275-295.

Royal Town Planning Institute (2024). The RTPI backs Government’s planning overhaul https://www.rtpi.org.uk/news/2024/december/the-rtpi-backs-government-s-planning-overhaul-but-warns-of-transitional-hurdles/

Royal Town Planning Institute (2025). Specific Legislative Asks https://www.rtpi.org.uk/policy-and-research/planning-reform-2025-hub/specific-legislative-asks/