My review of the UK's architecture and built environment has found that a little collaboration and co-ordination will go a long way – with the government as enablers not autocrats

'We recommend that the government appoints a chief architect in the same way that there is a chief planner and a chief construction adviser.' Photograph: Alamy

by Terry Farrell

Our built environment and the places we live in are so important to us, socially, economically, environmentally and culturally. Not just on an obvious day-to-day basis, but in relation to some of the big questions of our time – how do we build enough homes and make the places we live in outstanding? How do we meet the challenge of climate change? And, topically, how do we design places less susceptible to the terrible floods that hit so much of the country this winter.

My review of architecture and built environment, commissioned by culture minister Ed Vaizey, intends to answer these questions and many others besides. Crucially, it calls for a new proactive approach to the planning system: anticipating needs and opportunities, not simply responding to proposals for new development, and looking at places in their entirety rather than just at individual buildings and their design.

This requires a fundamental, philosophical rethink from everybody involved in the system, from architects and developers to policymakers and communities. There is no doubt that national and local government have an important role to play, both in achieving design quality as a client and in promoting design quality by acting in an exemplary way.

However, government is not the sole focus of the review. Policies should be developed which are enabled by government but led independently by the industry and communities, with their focus being the core "places" of villages, towns and cities. Very often, electorally defined political boundaries do not coincide with geographically defined place boundaries. The stewardship, long-term planning and identity of real places should be a fundamental part of built environment policies. I believe that the future lies in empowering cities and localities, with central government increasingly taking on an enabling role.

Moreover, real change cannot happen unless the wider public starts to expect and demand more of their built environment in the same way that attitudes to food and health have completely transformed things for the better in the past 30 years. The increasing public interest in the planning process is a start, but is too often negatively framed as campaigns against certain developments. There needs to be a positive agenda too, with people setting out what they do want from their communities, and the associated future provision of housing, infrastructure and other needs.

Another question we asked was "does England need an architecture policy"? The majority of EU countries have one, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we met with authors of those and the Dutch policies to understand their aims and objectives and see how successful they have been. We assembled an almost unprecedented meeting of 20 senior civil servants from every government department involved – 16 in total – and it emerged that almost every department has some policy on design, and that what is required is better co-ordination.

It may come as a surprise to some, therefore, that our conclusion on that question is that no, a formal architecture policy is not required. In my view, a much stronger network within government would be more effective than a singular, top-down built environment policy which is more suited to a smaller country. What we need are better connections between government departments, and one of our recommendations is for the government to appoint a chief architect in the same way that there is a chief planner and a chief construction adviser, to ensure high standards and consistency when approaching big issues like the public realm and sustainability.

The most important conclusion is that, irrespective of the area the review looked at, top-down statist approaches are not the solution for today's complex world. Whether it is the planning system, architecture education or promoting the sector abroad – all areas we looked at – it is clear that collaboration between government, communities and the industry represent the only serious way forward. We need to build more and better homes, and we need to create better places that people want to live in and communities are happy to accept. That is a big challenge, and I hope this report mark a first step in the right direction. It is for all of us to continue that journey.

> via The Guardian