Built Environment Committee

This session scrutinised how the built environment is taught and promoted in schools, focusing on the national curriculum, careers and skills, and how to connect industry and teachers more effectively. Witnesses outlined current outreach programmes (notably, the Built Environment Schools Trust’s My Environment My Future), argued for cross‑subject integration (beyond geography into physics and maths), and pressed for more systemic, scalable coordination across the sector. The Committee heard proposals for a central coordinating body, increased teacher support, and a national platform to link schools with industry, plus vocational routes (e.g., DEC qualifications) alongside traditional academic pathways. Legislative context cited includes Every Child Matters as a reference point for cross‑cutting responsibility, while witnesses emphasised travel/exposure to real environments and inclusive, hands‑on learning as core to engagement. Key barriers identified include time within the curriculum, resource constraints, regional disparities, and the need to depersonalise perceptions around construction to broaden appeal of the built environment as a field of study and work.

The Built Environment Committee examined how younger people should be involved in placemaking, focusing on why youth engagement matters, how to measure impact, and which policy levers could improve practice. Witnesses from industry (Grosvenor), youth-engagement organizations (MATT+FIONA), and an academic/advocate highlighted the value of early, inclusive engagement for better, safer, and more resilient places and for smoother planning processes. They flagged policy gaps and proposals: England lacks a statutory duty to involve children and young people in planning (contrasted with Scotland’s 2019 statutory duty), the potential role of inclusive engagement statements within Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs), and the need for proportionate approaches that scale across development sizes. They argued social value frameworks undervalue youth engagement and urged reform or guidance, plus the dissemination of open-source tools (Voice, Opportunity, Power) to help organisations engage youth cost-effectively. The discussion also covered the importance of international examples, metrics for measuring impact (including education-related outcomes), and avoiding a tick-box mindset by coupling guidance with clear agency for young participants.

This 14 April 2026 session of the Lords Built Environment Select Committee examined how the national curriculum, careers guidance and skills development are shaping young people’s engagement with the built environment. Witnesses highlighted fragmented, londons-centric delivery of sector education, the need for integrated cross-subject approaches, and the importance of experiential learning, travel and family involvement. They pushed for (i) a central coordinating body to scale up best practices, (ii) a digital platform linking schools with built environment practitioners, (iii) greater emphasis on creativity and three-dimensional problem solving within the curriculum, and (iv) a baseline built environment qualification and broader vocational routes. Governments’ commitments were not explicit; instead witnesses called for policy levers, funding and structural coordination to broaden access to built environment education beyond London, particularly in regional and disadvantaged areas. Key questions included how to embed the built environment in schooling, how to connect teachers with resources, and how to transition learners from education into training or employment in a scalable, equitable way.

The Built Environment Committee scrutinised the Government’s approach to developing new towns and expanded settlements, focusing on site selection, timetables, funding, governance, and placemaking. Key points include: (1) a commitment to begin work on three new towns within this Parliament and to deliver 1.5 million homes overall; (2) the SEA will be carried out for all 12 nominated sites, with a public consultation planned for February and a government response in the spring; (3) the Government sees development corporations as the preferred delivery mechanism, with cross-government coordination across MHCLG, DoT, DHSC, and others; (4) the target of 40% affordable housing in new towns, with half of that social rent, supported by the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme and related funding (e.g., DLR extension, Northern Powerhouse Rail); (5) a strong emphasis on placemaking, master planning from the outset, and ensuring safety and high design standards; and (6) recognition of risks around environmental assessments and market conditions, alongside a belief that a more enabling, community-led planning culture can unlock delivery. Government commitments highlighted include a spring government response to taskforce recommendations, a February public SEA consultation, a cross-government delivery approach, and the use of development corporations to drive delivery.

The Built Environment Committee scrutinised two distinct routes to delivering new towns within the housing and growth agenda: Enfield Council’s Crews Hill/Chase Park site (public-sector led, tightly integrated with local planning instruments) and Belport Ltd’s Adlington site (private-sector led, with substantial landholding and master-planning backed by government agencies). Witnesses outlined progress, governance, and engagement approaches, emphasised the need for early, upstream infrastructure, and discussed the potential role of a development corporation. They called for government coordination, funding clarity, and a robust design/landscape-led framework to achieve high-quality place-making. They also flagged significant challenges: NDA-era opacity, local political opposition, planning-capacity constraints, regulatory certainty, and the risk of judicial reviews. Where government lines were stated, witnesses pressed for a single, consistent government message on infrastructure delivery, housing targets, and long-term investment. The session produced commitments and recommendations around: pursuing designation timelines, pursuing a development-corporation model, adopting a landscape-first design code with dedicated design governance, and establishing a single government coordination point to harmonise agency actions.

The Built Environment Committee scrutinised how inclusive design, gendered-lens planning, disability inclusion, and child- and community-centred placemaking should shape new towns and extensions. Witnesses from disability advocacy, architecture, and local government shared evidence on social innovation, co-design, and practical tools (panels, design overlays, procurement conditions) to embed accessibility from project inception. Key strands included: using child-friendly and feminist design approaches to improve safety and belonging; mounting a strong case for disability-inclusive design beyond basic access (including cost considerations and the economic value of disabled consumers); institutional mechanisms to mainstream inclusion (early procurement briefs, EIAs, data disaggregation, and a proposed Chief Accessibility Officer); and proven practices from Earls Court and BEAP-style panels to ensure diverse voices influence planning. Across witnesses, there was no explicit Government pledge announced in this session, but frequent calls for national leadership, consistent policy framing (e.g., inclusion in National Planning Policy Framework, design review across new towns), and scaled-up adoption of inclusive design tools were evident.