![\"\"](\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/IHBC_Consultations-300x48.png\")
The IHBC has submitted its response to The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) consultation on \u2018Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy\u2019 (NPPF).<\/h3>\nThe IHBC has submitted its response to The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) consultation on \u2018Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy\u2019 (NPPF).<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
The IHBC reports:<\/p>\n
The amendments did not propose change to the chapter on Conserving and enhancing the historic environment but the Institute commented on many other aspects of the proposed changes including those proposed for removing the requirement for LPAs to demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply and the references to supporting \u2018beauty\u2019 in design and placemaking along with a stronger emphasis on local design codes.<\/p>\n
Responding to the consultation the Institute welcomed the broad principles of removing the requirement for LPAs to continually demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply if its local plan is less than five-year years old but noted this still uses the same imbalanced one size fits all approach for all areas, regardless of their economic viability.\u00a0 In many cases the Institute saw the NPPF as actually potentially being a barrier to levelling up.<\/p>\n
The IHBC writes:<\/p>\n
\u2026. \u2018IHBC agree with the importance of good quality design which is sensitive to its context and setting which is important for ensuring that places will be cherished and loved by local communities. We believe that the concept of \u2018spirit of place\u2019 once defined is really important and that regard has to be had to \u2018spirit of place \u2018which captures the quality of the built environment as well as the intangible qualities associated with a particular place. IHBC considers that this term or concept of beauty is not an objective one and is rather vague. It makes policy more ambiguous and suggests that it is about stylistic preference rather than more fundamental matters. We would prefer to see the use of the terms \u2018high quality design\u2019 and we believe that good quality design has a \u2018sensitivity to a structure\u2019s context and setting.\u2019 In practice local communities are often far more concerned with sustainable materials, ease of walking (15 minute neighbourhoods), green infrastructure, green design, character, etc\u2026.\u2019<\/p>\n