By Peter Lang of SF Planning 

A common theme in planning policies throughout our county is the classification of an area as being either within or outside a settlement's boundary. 

The assumption at the core of this is that building within our existing villages, towns and cities should be encouraged, while inappropriate development within our countryside should be avoided.

To facilitate growth in this manner, theoretically would result in the increasing density of our settlements, both in terms of buildings and population. However, as many will observe, our settlements are expanding outwards, commonly in the form of lower density suburban developments.

It is important to stress that there is nothing wrong with suburban housing. It is the most common way of living in the UK and can foster a healthy environment in which to live our lives. The flipside though is that a housing estate of single-unit family homes is commonly land-hungry, and such developments can lack a range of uses.

In contrast, well designed but denser urban environments can sustain a greater population and economic activity, while avoiding the sprawl of suburbia into our finite land resource.

So how did we arrive at a situation where low-density suburbia seems to be the order of the day? In planning terms, something that increasingly shapes decision making is national housing targets as set by central government. These housebuilding targets place an increased emphasis on the numbers, and despite things being much better than in the 1980s and 90s, often have less regard to the form of developments and the placemaking they foster.

Take for example Gloucester's annual housing target of 696 homes per year. With the city's brownfield land, opportunities for residential conversions and greater scope to build upwards, it is better suited for increases in density. In contrast, Cotswold District Council faces a target of 1,046 houses per year. While the Cotswold area is significantly larger, almost all of it is rural with strong landscape, built heritage and ecological protections. Owing to these factors, there are fewer options to permit anything but suburban extensions to rural villages at lower densities.

Other factors within the planning system which may discourage building at density include the recently introduced biodiversity net gain system. This mandatory and stringently applied process requires almost all developments to offset their ecological impact through enhancements within or around the site, or by buying expensive off-site credits.

This mechanism can favour lower density suburban development, where these enhancements can be more easily incorporated into a scheme. It is also worth mentioning the heavy burden that heritage rules place on our urban centres, where the mere presence of a listed building or a nearby Conservation Area can make successful change more difficult.

There is an irony here, that there were historically systems in place to address these very challenges. Specifically, the Gloucestershire Structure Plan, and more widely, Regional Spatial Strategies. A more unified approach meant that housing delivery could be considered in a far more strategic manner and take account of the variations which different places naturally hold.

While no single solution exists, it does raise some interesting questions. Perhaps here in Gloucestershire, the proposed local government reorganisation will be an opportunity to find a more balanced approach

For more information on any aspect of the planning process, contact Peter Lang at SF Planning Ltd on 01242 231575, email info@sfplanning.co.uk or visit www.sfplanning.co.uk.

• This article appeared in PUNCHL!NE THE ANNUAL 2025.