Most development prior to the planning system in the UK is more sustainable than what we build now. So where did we go wrong? A run on sentence thread:

Car dependancy: currently we generally design around the car even when we add a bus stop to a sprawling estate that is branded as a urban extension in the real world we live too busy lives to wait over 45 minutes to get a bus to go live our daily lives (outside cities).

That is not due to the planning system per se but we need to start to actually practice what we preach and start to build TOD compact walkable communities that encourage active travel first and then offer good public transport to other centres. This isnt happening currently often

Embodied Carbon (the drum I bang daily) our homes are built with huge amounts of carbon required. We have all the knowledge, materials and technology to ensure that this doesn't need to be the case. We could do with this being regulated & as it is possible to build net carbon

store homes (less emissions in construction than stored by the building) this can mitigate the harm of our less sustainable ways to an extent.

We need to start to look back at historic settlement patterns, densities and adapt them for todays needs. Most residential schemes at large scales offer no relation to historical development which is generally preffered in terms of experience.

The green belt, a planning policy, is not fit for purpose. It is a huge enabler of inequity between locations & ultimately increases housing costs whilst also pushed development out to less sustainable locations. It is not evidence based as is the case for all other countryside

Encroachment policies. @RTPIPlanners need to ask thier members if they support this policy & evaluate the reasons why it should or should be supported by the @RTPIPlanners
Its thier duty to represent sustainable dev & that is currently not the case @sue_manns @VictoriaRTPI

If anyone else has anything else they'd add to why we need to learn from practices prior to modern planning please feel free to share. No wrong answers here other than when they are incorrect.

Mono use areas: we tend to segregate uses which isn't helpful for walkability & we now have methods to mix all sorts of uses at different scales. Whether light industrial, commercial areas or residential with public facilities. Cross programing helps with density and viability

Other countries clearly have planning systems that have better outcomes for happiness & sustainability and there is no reason why we couldn't take aspects of them. IE Copenhagen. Great genuine public participation at the right times with the right qs to all demographics

We are still fossil fuel dependant & this is hugely problematic for our independence as a country (wheyyy brexit [joking we are doomed]) & we can't keep using fossil fuels anyway or the we will be under water. Warm water admittedly but it won't be nice. Like too long in the bath.

So a really important step is to stop.adding pseudo-sustainable extensions & for new TOD developments to be built around existing tube and train stations. This is the most economically viable solution & requires the least further exploitation of our environment.

We also need to rebalance funding from roads to more active travel infrastructure & public transport but thats been requested by many for a long time. Why don't we get suitable action on this point?

Social: the opportunities of more mixed communities which are walkable are the best way of allowing tolerance and interaction to happen. On purely logical basis - sitting in a car for 2 hours a day isn't social & there is no happenstance allowing for chance encounters.

Often in new developments groups are homogenous and when the front door is closed thays it - we dont have any public life to engage in outside and there isnnone to do so.

A planning system isn't the problem. Its this system.

Supply Delivery + Economic benefit - a sub thread:
An issue i have often tried to highlight to LPAs is that reliance on large sites and developers is a recipe for disaster. It is very tempting to allocate large sites with the shiny planning statements https://twitter.com/GilianGMAC/status/1316110886734618625?s=19

That include worked up trajectories of 80/90/100 dwellings per annum being built all from 2 weeks after approved but this rarely happens and even if the intentions were sincere (often not) there are many issues that can undermine the supply due to the reliance on a relatively

Small amount of outlets (developers sites actuve essentially). It is advantageous to seek to approve smaller sites for numerous reasons but the key 3 key reasons for this thread are the following:

Economic benefit - allowing a SME, self builder or co-op to build will retain any profit with in the local economy much more effectively. It won't all be there but a company such as @PersimmonHomes (and all other large devs) extract the max wealth they can and the only benefit