The Draft NPPF, Thoughtful Urban Design, Open Prisons… And Invisible Women?
Or, how the draft NPPF just gaslit half the population
“[The draft NPPF has] no references whatsoever to women, girls, gendered safety, or violence against women in the built environment. This omission matters. The places we design and build shape how safe women and girls feel when they travel, work, socialise and grow up. Planning policy is one of the most powerful structural tools the state has to prevent harm before it occurs. If the NPPF is silent on gendered safety, we embed risk and inequality into the fabric of every new development.” – Anna Sabine MP & Gideon Amos MP
Well, it’s February (hurrah, we’ve got January out of the way!) and we still have the shiny National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consultation on the table. But – surprise, surprise – the government has managed to achieve a feat of modern magic. They’ve made women and girls completely disappear.
Unless you’ve been blissfully ignoring the news to protect your sanity (can’t say I blame you), you’ll have seen the reports that this proposed update to England’s planning rules fails to specifically mention the safety of women and girls. Not once. Not in a footnote. Not even as a typo.
It’s almost impressive, isn’t it? In these missives I’ve commented on police officers going undercover in running gear just to gauge the inevitable daily harassment of women… I’ve noted that 72% of women are still deliberately shrinking their worlds the moment the clocks go back in October… I’ve highlighted the need for gender-responsive planning so female children are as happy to use the local park as the boys... and meanwhile? Well, meanwhile the people writing the documents at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) have decided that going all out on a specific call for “safety for women” is a bit too… niche. And unnecessary.
According to the MHCLG,
“The NPPF is a planning document. It sets out guidelines for housebuilding and planning in England. The VAWG [Violence Against Women and Girls] strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny. [It is] unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined.”
Really? Is the MHCLG right to trivialise this issue? Or, could it be that streets and the public realm actually have a huge influence on behaviour and can conceal abusive behaviour if not well designed?
Indeed, the VAWG strategy states that:
“Women and girls must both feel safe and be safe in every aspect of public life[…] Well-lit streets, accessible transport, and thoughtful urban design can deter violence, reduce opportunities for harm, and send a clear message that public spaces belong to everyone.”
I’ve been droning on about this for over a year now. I’ve talked about the “forever hum of fear“ that Marina Hyde so accurately described following Saoirse Ronan’s appearance on The Graham Norton Show. I’ve lobbied for Urban Design 101: the Jane Jacobs “eyes on the street“ approach that should be the literal bedrock of every new development.
And yet, here we are. The government wants to build 1.5 million homes. They want new towns in Tempsford and Leeds. But they currently seem to think these places will be predominantly populated by 6-foot-tall men who never have to worry about a blind corner, a poorly lit subway, or an area of concealment next to the bus stop that looks like a prime spot for a horror movie jump-scare.
As I may have mentioned before: you get what you invite. If you don’t explicitly invite women to feel safe, you are effectively inviting them to stay home. Or, as I like to call it, the “open prison“ model of urban planning.
The Guardian article highlights that critics are baffled by this omission. I’m not baffled. I’m fed up. Because this is what you get when planning and transport professions are still predominantly male domains.
The men designing the bulk of our public realm have no idea what it’s like if you’re a woman waiting at a bus stop that isn’t overlooked, or cycling on a “shared use” path that disappears into a dark thicket of unmaintained shrubbery, or just trying to make your way home on foot along a barely lit street. For women, this isn’t about active travel, it’s a survival challenge.
Even if the NPPF did include the words “women’s safety,” would it matter? Is it really an issue that the draft Framework talks about safety in general terms (see DP3: Key principles for well-designed places 1. g. and, TR4: Street design, access and parking 1. c.), and so treats everyone the same?
In its claims to be for everyone is it actually turning out to be for no-one?
Well, look around. Are we actually delivering places in your town that feel safe to the most vulnerable – women, yes, but also the elderly, young, members of the LGBTQ+ community, ethnic minorities etc. – or, could we actually use a little more powder in the cartridge to really drive the message home?
We’re asking over-stretched departments to deliver sunlit uplands when they can’t even find the funding to recruit enough staff. The result? Developers hand over a Design & Access Statement full of buzzwords like “accessible” and “safety” and “inclusive” without really considering what that means for half the population.
Can we, for the love of Jane Jacobs, just go back to the basics?
Short blocks – to give us a choice of routes and variety.
Mixed uses – so there are people – actual, real, live humans – out and about at all hours.
Street-based urbanism – where buildings actually face the street and provide natural surveillance.
Lighting that actually works – and not just CCTV which, as studies show, does nothing to make women actually feel safer.
If we plan for the most vulnerable, we improve the city for everyone. If a nine-year-old girl feels safe on her own going to play on the swings in a park… or an elderly woman can cross the street without needing to undertake an Olympic-level sprint… or a 31-year-old actress can walk home without clutching her keys… then – and only then – could we even begin to conclude we’re actually succeeding as placemakers.
But until the NPPF dares to acknowledge that half the population exists and that specific design interventions are needed, keep your phones and keys at the ready, ladies.
Because apparently, in the eyes of the government, if you’re a woman or a girl, your safety and any misogyny you might encounter while out and about, apparently has nothing whatsoever to do with planning.
Amirite ladies?
Question: The government claims 40% of these new homes will be “affordable,” yet they can’t even afford to put the words “women’s safety” in the Framework. Do you think a gender-responsive approach to the proposed New Towns is even on their radar, or are we just building 21st-century silos?
#placemaking #womenssafety #NPPF #urbanism #janejacobs #amirite #newtowns #urbandesign
… and if you enjoyed it and wanna keep getting the juice…