Town Centres at a Turning Point: Why Flexibility Matters More Than Ever

Town centres across England are continuing to evolve at pace. Long-term structural changes in retail, the growth of leisure and the night-time economy, and the increasing role of residential development mean that a rigid, one-size-fits-all policy approach is no longer fit for purpose. The draft revisions to Chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) largely recognise this reality – but there remain key areas where national policy must go further if it is to genuinely support town centre vitality.

At Planning Potential, we strongly support the principle that planning for town centres should be informed by a clear strategy. Understanding the role of a centre, its opportunities for growth, and the realistic scope for new floorspace and uses is essential. However, aligning town centre strategies too tightly with the development plan risks undermining their effectiveness. Markets change faster than plans. Retailer formats, occupier demand and consumer behaviour can shift significantly within a few years, let alone over a full plan period. Town centre strategies must therefore be capable of being reviewed and updated flexibly, outside the slow and resource-intensive development plan process. 

Crucially, strategies also need to embrace the full breadth of uses that now sustain successful centres. While diversification is increasingly acknowledged in policy, there is scope for much clearer recognition of the role played by the evening and night-time economy. Leisure, food and drink, cultural uses and other complementary activities are not optional extras – they are often fundamental to maintaining footfall, safety and vibrancy beyond standard retail hours. National policy should be explicit in supporting these uses as integral components of town centre health.

The draft NPPF rightly gives substantial weight to proposals that support vitality and viability through intensification and diversification, including residential development. This is welcome. Equally important is the clear emphasis on ensuring access to day-to-day facilities that serve local communities. Supporting these uses should remain a policy priority, particularly in smaller centres and areas with limited alternatives.

Where the draft policy gives cause for concern, however, is in relation to development beyond town and edge-of-centre locations. We strongly support the principle that, where suitable sites cannot be identified, plans should clearly set out how identified needs will be met in other accessible locations that are well connected to town centres. Too often, plans acknowledge unmet need but fail to provide a credible route to delivery, stifling both investment and economic growth.

More problematic still is the apparent re-introduction of disaggregation within the sequential test. Developers and operators operate in practical world– they work within proven, format-driven business models. Expecting proposals to be artificially split across multiple sites fails the “real world” test and risks acting as an unnecessary barrier to investment, without delivering tangible benefits for town centres. This approach was rightly moved away from in previous policy iterations and should not be revived now.

The introduction of Use Class E has been one of the most positive planning reforms of recent years, enabling flexibility and unlocking sites for town centre uses. Attempts to undermine this flexibility through overly restrictive conditions miss the point of the reform and should be resisted.

Town centres remain central to sustainable growth, but protecting them does not mean freezing them in time. Policy must enable change, not constrain it. Flexibility, realism and a genuine understanding of how centres function today will be critical to making the “town centres first” approach work in practice.