Levelling Up is the right priority. Architects can help deliver it

The Levelling Up White Paper has now dropped, and it is a fuller set of documents than many expected. Yes, the introduction is farcical –the Medicis and the Industrial Revolution were hardly examples of reducing inequality – but dig into the full White Paper and an interesting shift in thinking becomes clear.

The first 150 pages of the document are a surprisingly academic and rigorous analysis of how and why geographically-based deprivation exists and persists, and the history of public policy in this field. Footnotes run to the hundreds and the sources range from Paul Krugman to Mariana Mazucatto, whose ‘mission-oriented policy’ concept is pretty much swallowed whole.

Much of the pre-prepared critique has focused on the lack of new funding to support the Levelling Up agenda and it’s true that there is little new money on the table.

But its radicalism is in proposing a major shift in how government – at all levels – is required to work. Whitehall departments are silo’d, fighting petty turf wars and competing for Treasury resources. And central and local government have an intense mistrust. A whole systems analysis of why there is such pervasive deprivation in certain locations presents a major challenge to these entrenched ways of working. It is no exaggeration that the White Paper calls this a ‘root and branch reform of government and governance of the UK.’

Making all departments measure outcomes against the 12 ‘missions’ outlined in the White Paper will be relatively straightforward, but making them work together to reduce overlaps, competing projects and uncoordinated initiatives will be far harder.

And this is where the White Paper falls down, by proposing a raft of extra layers at central and local levels which will only increase the complexity of the landscape, rather than simplifying it. A new Cabinet committee, Levelling Up directors, devolved Mayoral Combined Authorities with bespoke sets of powers – this isn’t a simplified administrative landscape.

You can sense the tension between the Conservatives’ natural tendency to centralise – remind yourself how much funding and power has been withdrawn from local government since 2010 – and the knowledge that communities want to see power more localised and locally accountable. And without significant new funding for local government, the ‘missions’ and metrics simply can’t be met.

What does all this mean for architects and the built environment? Firstly, I think architects should welcome a shift to (or back to, if you are old enough to recall the early Blair and Prescott years) place-based policy and initiatives. Fundamentally architects care about the quality and character of places, and we want to see them thrive.

As a profession, architects can take the lead in articulating a distinctive vision for local places and should take this opportunity to shape that vision as early as possible. Make allies with politicians and senior officials, help literally paint the picture for them about what a thriving Macclesfield or Doncaster might look like.

Secondly, there are going to be buildings to design – and most will be small capital projects – a youth centre, a refurb of a local arts venue, public realm – which are inexpensive and make the small budgets go further.

There will also be the ‘marquee’ big schemes – the King’s Cross analogy for larger brownfield sites has been much quoted – but these will take far longer to materialise and, given the role that Homes England will be taking here, may only be accessible to the larger and more commercial multidisciplinary firms. (Hasn’t this come full circle, as Homes England originated in English Partnerships, which was the OG brownfield regeneration agency – but those skills are long gone within the current structure of Homes England).

This is a great opportunity for regionally based practices who have the relationships and the authentic, rooted understanding of these places to lead in their renewal. But be prepared for small budgets, big expectations, and a multitude of stakeholders at every stage.

Hana Loftus is co-founder and director of Colchester-based HAT Projects and a chartered planner. She was previously Engagement and Communications Lead for the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service