Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
“Beautiful places aren’t built like this” is a 27 July 2021 opinion comment by Matthew Pratt, then identified as Redrow’s CEO, arguing that England’s emerging design-code guidance did not reflect society’s changed priorities after COVID-19. The important distinction is that this is Pratt’s criticism, not an independently established finding. The comment addressed the government’s Building Beautiful Places programme and the July 2021 National Model Design Code (NMDC), following the Living with Beauty report, a Design Quality Steering Group, and consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
What “Beautiful places aren’t built like this” means
The title belongs to a Building opinion comment published on 27 July 2021. Its author, Matthew Pratt, was identified in the publisher’s result as Redrow’s chief executive. The subtitle states his position directly: “Government guidelines on design codes fail to recognise society’s changed priorities post-covid.” That wording matters. The article presents a housebuilder’s response to a policy process; it does not establish that the National Model Design Code was objectively inadequate, nor does the available excerpt set out a complete alternative.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Pratt’s target was the July 2021 release of the National Model Design Code, or NMDC. He argued that it was largely unchanged from the version consulted on months earlier, despite what the result describes as thousands of consultation responses. The excerpt does not give an exact response count, identify which proposals were retained or rejected, or reproduce the detailed reasoning behind his criticism. It also does not spell out which post-pandemic priorities he believed the code missed.
A careful reading therefore produces two conclusions. First, the comment is part of a real policy debate about how places should be designed and regulated. Second, its strongest claims remain attributable to Pratt unless the complete article and the underlying government documents are reviewed.
#1 Best Overall
The policy chain behind the comment
The comment sits within a sequence of government initiatives rather than a stand-alone design manual. The excerpt names four connected elements: the Living with Beauty report, a Design Quality Steering Group, consultation on proposed improvements to the NPPF, and the Building Beautiful Places plan that accompanied publication of the NMDC.
Living with Beauty
The January 2020 Living with Beauty report is identified as the starting point in the policy process described by the publisher. Its place in the sequence shows that the government was seeking a broader design-quality agenda before the NMDC was issued. The excerpt does not provide the report’s recommendations in full, so it would be misleading to attribute particular standards, targets or definitions of beauty to it here.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The Design Quality Steering Group
The policy process then included the formation of a Design Quality Steering Group. Its existence signals an attempt to give design quality an organised role in shaping guidance. The available text does not list the group’s membership, remit, meetings or recommendations. Those details should not be inferred from the group’s name alone.
Consultation on the NPPF
The same process included consultation on proposed improvements to the National Planning Policy Framework. The NPPF is the national planning-policy context in which local planning decisions are made, while a model design code is intended to offer a framework that can be adapted locally. The excerpt does not say which NPPF passages were proposed for change or how those proposals interacted with the NMDC.
Building Beautiful Places and the NMDC
The government’s stated objective, as summarised by Building, was to empower local authorities and communities to create beautiful places to live, with greater emphasis on quality, design and improvement. The NMDC was the principal design-code publication named in the comment. In practical terms, a national model can provide a common reference while leaving local authorities to decide how a code should operate in a particular area. The excerpt does not establish the legal status of the July 2021 document or the extent to which any authority had adopted it.
Rank #2
Why the pandemic is central to Pratt’s objection
Pratt’s criticism is not simply that a document was too detailed, too restrictive or poorly written. The visible argument is that the guidance was prepared and released against a changed social backdrop. The consultation and drafting process began before or during the early stages of the global COVID-19 pandemic, while the final NMDC appeared in July 2021. He contended that the final version did not sufficiently account for that shift.
The excerpt does not define “changed priorities.” It supplies no list of housing preferences, public-space requirements, transport habits, health considerations, working patterns or affordability concerns that Pratt had in mind. Adding such a list as though it were his published argument would go beyond the available text. The defensible point is narrower: he believed the pandemic should have altered the way design guidance was framed, and he did not think the released code reflected that change.
This distinction is useful for anyone evaluating policy commentary. A claim that circumstances have changed is different from evidence that a specific rule produced a bad outcome. To test the latter, readers would need the final code, the consultation version, the responses, the government’s response to those responses and examples of local implementation. None of those materials is supplied by the publisher’s excerpt.
The consultation question: what does “largely unchanged” tell us?
Consultation is intended to expose a proposal to outside views before publication. Pratt’s objection, as reported, is that the July 2021 NMDC remained largely unchanged from the earlier consultation draft despite thousands of responses. “Thousands” is the only scale provided; no exact number or statistical source is given.
An unchanged text can have several explanations. A drafting team may have judged that comments supported the existing approach, that proposed edits were outside the document’s scope, or that changes belonged in another policy instrument. Conversely, limited visible change can indicate that consultation altered wording without changing the underlying policy. The excerpt does not reveal which explanation applies.
For a reader assessing a design code, the meaningful questions are therefore procedural as well as architectural:
- What did the consultation ask respondents to comment on?
- Which themes appeared in the responses?
- Did the published document identify changes made as a result?
- Were pandemic-related issues raised, and if so, how were they handled?
- Which decisions were reserved for local codes rather than the national model?
Without those answers, the allegation of insufficient change remains a serious opinion about responsiveness, not a quantified finding.
What a design code can—and cannot—do
A design code is a set of rules or principles used to guide the form and quality of development. A national model can make expectations easier to communicate, but it cannot by itself determine whether a particular street, neighbourhood or home works for its residents. Local authority decisions, site constraints, infrastructure, land economics, building control and the choices of applicants all affect the result.
That division of responsibility explains why the Building Beautiful Places objective emphasised local authorities and communities. A model code can be a starting point; local adoption and application determine how it influences proposals. The available account does not show whether the NMDC was mandatory, how local authorities were expected to adapt it, or how conflicts with other planning requirements would be resolved. Those are implementation questions, not details that can be answered from Pratt’s subtitle.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Nor does the word “beautiful” provide a measurable outcome on its own. A code may seek coherent streets, usable public areas or well-considered buildings, but the excerpt does not define the government’s design criteria. Readers should resist treating the programme’s title as proof that a completed development will meet any particular aesthetic or social standard.
What the comment contributes to the debate
Pratt’s intervention puts a housebuilder’s perspective into a discussion usually framed through government guidance and local planning. That perspective can be relevant because builders must interpret codes, assemble land, prepare applications and deliver projects under commercial and regulatory constraints. It is also interested commentary: the author represented a major development company, and the excerpt does not present an independent evaluation of the NMDC.
The comment’s contribution is therefore best understood as a challenge to the timing and responsiveness of the policy process. It asks whether guidance developed before the pandemic could remain fit for purpose when the public’s expectations had changed. It does not, on the text available, provide a replacement code, a costed set of amendments or evidence from completed schemes.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How different participants should read the issue
Local authorities
Authorities considering a model design code would need to separate national principles from locally evidenced needs. The comment highlights the importance of recording how consultation feedback affects a code, especially when circumstances change between draft and publication. A clear statement of what was adopted, altered or left for local determination would make the process easier to scrutinise.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCommunities
Residents should ask what influence a model code gives them and at which stage. A government objective of empowering communities does not, by itself, explain the consultation route, the decision-maker or the weight given to local responses. The relevant local documents—not the programme title—should show how community input is handled.
Housebuilders and designers
Applicants need to know which provisions are guidance, which are incorporated into a local code, and how design expectations interact with site viability and other planning requirements. Pratt’s comment makes the timing issue visible, but it does not remove the need to read the operative local policy before designing a scheme.
Best Value
Residents and clients commissioning work
Anyone commissioning a home or neighbourhood project should treat “beautiful” as an aspiration until the applicable code defines practical requirements. Ask for the adopted local documents, the design rationale and the route for resolving departures. A national model may inform those documents, but the excerpt does not establish that it controls an individual project.
A concise timeline
| Point in the process | What is established by the published account | What is not established |
|---|---|---|
| January 2020 | Living with Beauty is identified as the beginning of the policy process. | The excerpt does not provide its detailed recommendations. |
| After the report | A Design Quality Steering Group was formed. | Its membership, remit and outputs are not given. |
| Before July 2021 | Proposed improvements to the NPPF were put out for consultation, and an NMDC draft was consulted on. | The questions, responses and proposed amendments are not reproduced. |
| July 2021 | The NMDC was released as part of the Building Beautiful Places agenda. | The excerpt does not state its legal force or adoption record. |
| 27 July 2021 | Building published Matthew Pratt’s comment that the guidance failed to recognise changed post-COVID priorities. | The full argument and supporting examples were not available in the publisher’s result. |
What remains unanswered
The available publisher material cannot establish the current status of the NMDC or any later revisions. It also cannot establish whether the NPPF proposals were adopted, how many consultation responses were received, or whether local authorities subsequently changed their codes in response to pandemic-related concerns. Those questions require the official policy documents and the complete Building article.
Recommended Free Tools
That limitation should not be mistaken for a verdict against either side. The government’s stated aim—giving local authorities and communities more power to create high-quality places—is clear in the excerpt. Pratt’s objection—that the final guidance did not reflect changed priorities after COVID-19—is also clear as an attributed opinion. What is missing is the documentary bridge between those positions: the detailed evidence, amendments and implementation outcomes that would show whether the criticism was borne out.
The practical takeaway
“Beautiful places aren’t built like this” is best read as a warning about policy responsiveness, not as proof that one design code failed everywhere. The 2021 comment identifies a tension that remains understandable in any fast-changing period: national guidance seeks consistency, while local places and public expectations can change faster than a formal consultation cycle. For a real project, the decisive source is the adopted local planning and design policy, supported by the consultation record and the site’s own requirements—not the headline or an untested assumption about what “beauty” means.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
