design coding in practice...(fig 1.3 upton). the monitoring and ... a design code is an illustrated...

Design Codingin Practice

An Evaluation

June 2006

The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL and Tibbalds Planning & Urban Design

Department for Communities and Local Government: London

Design Coding in PracticeAn Evaluation

The research team:

The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL: Matthew Carmona (Project Director); Ruth Blum; Leo Hammond; Quentin Stevens.

Tibbalds Planning & Urban Design: Jane Dann; Andy Karski; Chris Pittock; Sue Rowlands; Katja Stille.

Department for Communities and Local GovernmentEland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5DUTelephone: 020 7944 4400Web site: www.communities.gov.uk

© Crown copyright 2006.

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private studyor for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.

The findings and recommendations in this report are those of the consultant authors and do not necessarily represent the views or any policies of the DCLG.

For any other use of this material, please write to HMSO Licensing, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected].

Alternative formats of this publication are available from:

DCLG PublicationsPO Box 236WetherbyWest Yorkshire LS23 7NBTel: 0870 1226 236Fax: 0870 1226 237Textphone: 0870 1207 405E-mail: [email protected] online via www.communities.gov.uk

Product Code: 05 SCDD 03699

ContentsForeword 5

1. Introduction and findings 6

2. Decision to code 45

3. Co-ordinate inputs 57

4. Understanding context 73

5. Code design 85

6. Code delivery 154

7. Managing outcomes 165

8. Sustainable outcomes 176

Annex A: the case studies 194

Annex B: the methodology 198

Annex C: glossary of terms 200

Acknowledgements for images and case studies 203

3

DESIGN CODING IN PRACTICE – AN EVALUATION

4

The Government is committed to raising the design quality of newdevelopment in all locations. Although different places face differentchallenges, high quality development is essential to the successfuldelivery of sustainable communities.

Good planning needs to be a positive and proactive process thatseeks to get the right type of development in the right place, at theright time. The planning reforms which we introduced have set out toimplement a more transparent, flexible, predictable, efficient andeffective planning system that can deliver the quality of developmentwhich is needed to secure our vision for sustainable communities.Design coding contributes to this agenda.

In May 2004 the Deputy Prime Minister announced a nation-wideprogramme to assess the potential of design coding to produceattractive, well planned environments quickly and efficiently.Seven pilot projects were established to test design codes in a rangeof different contexts. In addition, twelve case studies of large scaleresidential developments were monitored and evaluated for their useof design codes or alternative design tools.

Last year saw the publication of Design Coding: Testing its use inEngland1 which outlined the initial findings of our research projectinto the use and application of design coding. Early conclusions wereencouraging and in the Government’s response to the Barker Reviewand our draft Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) weindicated that design codes are one mechanism that can help toimprove the quality, value and delivery of residential development.

We now have the full findings from the monitoring and evaluationof the project and they are summarised within this research report.

The research confirms our initial conclusions that design codes canplay an effective part in building sustainable communities for futuregenerations and are particularly valuable when sites are large, whenthey are in multiple ownership or when a development involvesseveral developers or design teams. The main benefits of design codesoutlined in the research report are that:

Design codes can play a major role in delivering better qualitydevelopment.They have a significant role to play in delivering a morecertain design and development process.If properly managed, can provide the focus around whichteams of professional stakeholders can integrate their activities,delivering in the process a more co-ordinated and consensusdriven process.Provide enhanced economic value that better design and astronger sense of place can deliver.

We need to take steps to improve the way we build sustainablecommunities for our future generations. I am confident that designcodes have the potential to play a key role in this process, and aidthe delivery of high quality development that meets local needs.

This research gives us a solid foundation to introduce design codesinto the planning process in England and it is informing thepreparation of practice guidance on how they can be usedsuccessfully and effectively to help create well-planned, attractiveand high quality sustainable places.

Baroness Andrews OBEParliamentary Under Secretary of State

5

1 Design Coding: Testing its use in England (Cabe, ODPMand English Partnerships, 2005)

Ministerial Foreword

1 Introduction and findings

Introduction

1.1 In February 2003, the Government launched its SustainableCommunities Plan for England, setting out its long-term ambitionto create sustainable communities in urban and rural areas inorder to meet the increasing demand for new homes, particularlyin the South East. An implicit assumption in this and other relatedpolicy documents was that to achieve the government’schallenging targets for housing, new delivery mechanisms areneeded.

In the months following the launch of the SustainableCommunities Plan, there was a growing media debate about thepotential use of design codes as a mechanism to deliver the large-scale housing development envisaged by the plan. The debatereflected a wider international growth in interest in the potentialto use codes to help deliver high quality urbanism.

Background

1.2 Reflecting the debate, in November 2003, the Commission forArchitecture and the Built Environment (CABE) published aposition statement on design codes, Building SustainableCommunities: The Use of Urban Design Codes. This recommendedthat the Government should commission research to analyse thepotential use of design codes and how they could apply inEngland. At the Prince’s Foundation ‘Traditional UrbanismConference’ that month, the Deputy Prime Minister announcedthat the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister (now theDepartment for Communities and Local Government) would beexploring the potential of design coding to produce “attractive,well planned environments quickly and efficiently”.

1.3 As a result in May 2004, ODPM, working in partnership withCABE and English Partnerships, instituted an action researchprogramme (running throughout 2004 and 2005) to allow designcodes to be tested in practice in England in order thatjudgements could be made about how they perform, based onlive case studies. A team led by Professor Matthew Carmona atUCL’s Bartlett School of Planning, in partnership with TibbaldsPlanning and Urban Design, were commissioned to undertake anindependent monitoring and evaluation of the programme.

1.4 This report presents the findings from that research. Anintermediate report on the research – Design Codes, Testing its Usein England – was published by CABE in 2005, and provides usefulfurther information on the literature review and national designcodes survey also undertaken by the research team (see Annex B).


6

Fig 1.1 Ashford, coding for urban structureand massing

Fig 1.2 Hastings, coding for architecturalquality and energy efficiency (here by precedent)

Fig 1.3 Upton, sustainable Urban Drainage System(SUDS)

1.5 Design codes are a distinct form ofdetailed design guidance that prescribesthe three dimensional components of adevelopment and how these relate toone another but do not prescribe theoverall outcome. Design coding hasboth historical and contemporaryprecedents in the UK and overseas.Coding was used, for example, torebuild London following the Great Fireof 1666 as a means to improve sanitary,safety and amenity standards in the City.Today, in various guises, codes can besaid to exist in the Building Regulations,in national and local highways designstandards, and in the space aroundbuildings and density standards used bymany local planning authorities.

1.6 A Design Code (as distinct from designcoding) is therefore a set of specificcomponents with rules to guide theiruse in order to generate the physicaldevelopment of a site or place. The aimof design coding is therefore to provideclarity over what constitutes acceptabledesign quality and thereby achieve alevel of certainty for developers and thelocal community alike. In doing so,codes typically separate the roles of

code designer from developmentdesigner, with the latter designing abuilding, building group or sub-area,within the context set by the former forthe whole development.

1.7 Design codes usually build upon thedesign vision contained in a masterplanor development framework and providea set of requirements (the codesthemselves) to achieve the vision. Thesecan extend from urban design principlesaimed at delivering better quality placesand include requirements for streets,blocks, massing and so on, or may befocused more on architectural orbuilding performance issues (figs 1.1Ashford & 1.2 Hastings), for exampleaiming to increase resource efficiency(fig 1.3 Upton). The monitoring andevaluation suggested the followingsimple definition:

A design code is an illustrated compendiumof the necessary and optional designcomponents of a particular developmentwith instructions and advice about howthese relate together in order to deliver amasterplan or other site-based vision.

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND F INDINGS

7

Design codes – What are they?

Fig 1.4 Newhall, an ‘advanced’ coded project

Fig 1.5 Greenhithe, a ‘non-code’ project

1.8 The programme encompassed thedetailed monitoring and evaluation ofnineteen case studies of three types (seeAnnex A). First, a series of ‘Pilot’projects which were enabled by CABEto produce design codes as an integralpart of seven evolving developmentprojects. The development of thesecodes was monitored from their earlystages. Second, the retrospectiveevaluation of eight ‘Advanced’ codedprojects, where codes had already beenprepared and used independently of thepilot programme (fig 1.4 Newhall). Inthese case studies, development hadalready been delivered on the groundutilising the codes. Third, four‘non-code’ projects, which used otherdetailed design guidance mechanisms(fig 1.5 Greenhithe). These exampleswere chosen as comparisons, and werealso advanced in the sense that theywere already influencing the delivery ofdevelopment on the ground.

1.9 The case studies were chosen to reflecta geographical spread, a range ofdifferent development and physicalcontexts, as well as variety in size,ownership and stakeholder engagement.


8

The research


9

Fig 1.6 The case studies – type and description

Location/Name Description Pilot/Case Study

AdvancedCase Study

Residential-led, mixed-use development.14 hectares of brownfield land within the LondonRoyal Docks. 1,000 units (780 for sale), supportfacilities and infrastructure.

London Royal DocksWest Silvertown

AdvancedCase Study

Mixed use urban extension. 350 residential units,a school and a number of shops. Land ownedby English Partnerships.

NorthamptonUpton

AdvancedCase Study

800 dwellings on a 71.8 hectare site ownedby English Partnerships and the BournvilleVillage Trust.

TelfordLightmoor

PilotMixed use, including 600 dwellings. 12 hectaresite owned by Satnam Developments and anarray of other private owners.

RotherhamTown Centre RiverCorridor

Pilot4,500 dwellings on a 309 hectare site owned bySwindon Borough Council and Bryant Homes.

SwindonSouthern DevelopmentArea

Pilot2,500 (net gain) dwellings on a 5km2 site, ownedby Newcastle City Council, and focusing onrevitalising an existing community.

NewcastleWalker Riverside

Pilot1,300 dwellings on a 48.6 hectare site ownedby Wimpey Homes and Westbury Homes.

AshfordAshford Barracks

Pilot700 dwellings on three sites. The 67 hectareHastings Millennium Community is owned bya variety of mainly public bodies.

HastingsOre Valley

PilotBetween 260 and 340 dwellings. Site of 8.7hectares owned jointly by Berkeley CommunityVillages and Cotswold District Council.

CirencesterKingshill South

Pilot4,500 dwellings on a 137.5 hectare site to bereleased by the Ministry of Defence and ownedby Defence Estates.

AldershotUrban Extension

Fig 1.6 The case studies – type and description

Location/Name Description Pilot/Case Study

Non-CodeCase Study

Mixed development on a greenfield site on theedge of Newcastle. 80 hectares of business parkand 2,500 residential units with support facilities.

Newcastle Newcastle Great Park

Non-CodeCase Study

Greenfield development of 3,300 dwellings.Mixed use settlement centre, including twoschools, a supermarket, library, doctor surgeryand a business centre. The total site is 322hectares and owned by a developer consortium.

South CambridgeshireCambourne

Non-CodeCase Study

Approximately 700 units on a 21.4 hectaresite owned by Crest Nicholson.

PortisheadPort Marine

Non-CodeCase Study

1,200 dwellings on a 70 acre site owned byCrest Nicholson.

KentGreenhithe

AdvancedCase Study

Urban extension to Aylesbury of 1900 dwellings.Mixed use town centre on 200 hectarespromoted by the landowner, a private trust.

AylesburyFairford Leys

AdvancedCase Study

440 dwellings on a site of 17.4 hectares inHarlow. First phase of a proposed new 2,800homes, promoted by the private landowner.

HarlowNewhall

AdvancedCase Study

800 new homes in the 27.7 hectare grounds ofa listed Victorian hospital building in Letchworth.Owned by a consortium of developers.

LetchworthFairfield Park(Mid Beds)

AdvancedCase Study

Redevelopment of the 100 hectare 1960s Hulmeestate on the edge of Manchester City Centre.Public/private City Challenge joint venture onland which was owned by Manchester City Council.

ManchesterHulme

AdvancedCase Study

Over 1400 dwellings on a 30.9 hectare siteowned and promoted by English Partnershipsas the first Millennium Community.

GreenwichGreenwich MillenniumVillage

Fig 1.7 Case study map

Fig 1.8 Case study contexts

1.10 A common methodology was adoptedfor the analysis of each case study (seeAnnex A). This involved extensiveinterviews with those that had been, orstill were, involved in the design anduse of the design codes (or other designguidance); detailed analysis of thecontent of the codes and other forms ofguidance; observation at keyevents/meetings that lead to thedevelopment of the codes; and (wherepossible) evaluation of developmentoutcomes on the ground (see Annex B).

A conceptual framework was used toensure a consistent basis for themonitoring and evaluation. Thisframework modelled a hypotheticalcoding process (fig 1.9), and thereforetook the analysis through from codeinception to completion on site. Eachcase study was analysed for its responseto each stage of this hypothetical codingprocess.


10

Fig 1.9 A hypothetical coding process

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES

ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

COORDINATEINPUTS

Fig 1.10 Hulme, a new city quarter The reportstructure

1.11 The report broadly follows the structureof the hypothetical coding process.Following this introduction, what thecase studies revealed about the decisionto code and the key stages ofCo-ordinating inputs, Understandingcontext, Code design, Code delivery,and Managing outcomes are eachdiscussed, as well as the outcomesdelivered (or anticipated) by the casestudies. Findings are included as bulletpoints at the start of each section andare brought together below.

The results of an analysis of the contentof the codes are summarised andpresented in boxes throughout thefollowing chapters as and when theyrelate to the main text. A glossary ofterms is included in Annex C to aidcomprehension.

Detailed findings1.12 The range of case study types revealed a

rich and robust set of findings that arepresented below. These are crosscuttingfindings in the sense that they derivefrom analysis of the three case studytypes and encompass all stages of thehypothetical coding process:

Key Finding OneMotivations for using codinglargely focus on quality, inparticular the ability to co-ordinate outputs across largesites:

1.13 Overwhelmingly those involved indesign coding are involved for onereason, the potential to improvedevelopment quality. Whether theintention is to establish a springboard toexcellence or simply a safety net belowwhich quality will not fall, varies, and acombination of the two is mostcommon.

1.14 Those involved hope that codes willdeliver a process built on consensusrather than conflict, one that will bemore certain and predictable. Inaddition, landowners and developers


11

Fig 1.11 Aldershot, flowchart of coding andapprovals process

Fig 1.12 Aldershot, development framework

often aspire to a corresponding increasein the value of their investment, whilstall stakeholders aim to createdevelopment with character and a senseof place (fig 1.10 Hulme). Somedevelopers also hope that codes will beable to deliver a faster planning process.

1.15 Other forms of detailed design guidanceare produced for largely the samereasons; typically to raise the quality ofdesign and distinguish developments formarketing purposes. However, thepotential of codes rests in their ability toco-ordinate outputs from differentdevelopers/designers across large sitesand to integrate different designelements with a forcefulness that otherforms of design guidance cannot match.

Key Finding TwoCodes are delivery (not vision-making) tools, but can help todevelop and refine the vision:

1.16 The research revealed that codes are notviewed as vision-making documents, butas delivery mechanisms to help deliverthe vision expressed elsewhere. Used inisolation, the potential of codes islimited to generic design guidance.

Typically, however, masterplans,regulating plans or developmentframeworks establish the broaderphysical/place-based vision, whilst codesinterpret and articulate the vision,shaping it and developing it in theprocess. Ideally, therefore, codes needto be built upon the firm foundation ofa technically and financially robustphysical vision (figs 1.11 & 1.12Aldershot).

1.17 Masterplans, frameworks and regulatingplans serve the important role ofdefining the street hierarchy (fig 1.13Hastings) and identifying separateneighbourhoods in terms oftheir densities (fig 1.14 Ashford),patterns of land use and open space,and building type (fig 1.15 FairfieldPark). These are subsequently codedwith different block forms, buildingenvelopes, street treatments andarchitectural and landscape characters.However, codes vary considerably alonga continuum from those that significantlydevelop the core principles of a largelyconceptual physical vision, to those thatprimarily articulate (in a technical sense)the principles already established in adetailed masterplan or other vision (fig1.16 Aldershot).


12

Fig 1.13 Hastings, coding of streets by type

Fig 1.14 Ashford, density areas

Fig 1.15 Fairfield Park, matrix of lot sizes, building types and boundary treatments

which accompanies the regulating plan

Fig 1.16 Aldershot, illustrative sub-area masterplan


13

Fig 1.17 Upton, character area matrix

Fig 1.18 Greenhithe, example of character area design statement

1.18 Importantly, masterplans and other physicalvisions are rarely static documents, but aresubject to change throughout the codingprocess, a process which can help to delivera more detailed and considered vision. Fortheir part the non-code case studies oftenfollowed a similar division between visionand delivery but by other means (masterplanand phasing briefs; masterplan and acharacter area matrix (fig 1.17 Upton & 1.18Greenhithe); local design guide and detailedmasterplan; masterplan and design strategystatements). In these cases, therefore, theneed to further articulate key designprinciples through other detailed andtechnical documents was still deemednecessary.

Key Finding ThreeCoding is resource intensive,but overall the balance sheetis positive:

1.19 Coding is time consuming and thereforealso a resource-intensive process for allparties involved. As such it requires thecommitment of resources up-front, andthe research suggested that partnersfrequently underestimate this and needto be more realistic about the significantresources that coding (or indeed anyform of detailed design guidance) willentail. These same stakeholders acceptthat:

The true costs will only becomeapparent after the full planningprocess has been worked through.This investment needs to be seenwithin a context of the use of codesin connection with major developmentproposals for which such an up-frontinvestment is to be expected.

1.20 Significantly, where codes are beingimplemented on site, schemes havebeen delivering enhanced sales valuesand increased land values. When set offagainst the up-front investment, this to alarge degree determines the value addedby coding, at least in crude economic


14

Fig 1.19 West Silvertown, regulating architectural quality

terms. The qualitative evidence suggeststhat the outcome is positive, and forcommercial partners, over the long-term,codes seem to be more than paying forthemselves.

1.21 By contrast, public sector partners worrythat the cost of their input isunsustainable given resource constraintsin the sector; although they recognisethat many potential ‘sticking-points’ arebeing resolved during the codingprocesses that would otherwise need tobe tackled during development controlor pre-application negotiations onreserved matters. Where used, codinghas also typically had the added benefitof encouraging local authorities into thetype of more pro-active role envisagedby the 2004 planning reforms. Thereforecodes may simply be re-distributing thetime and resources required from thepublic sector – effectively front loadingthem – rather than significantly addingto them. The same costs and benefitswere apparent for other forms ofdetailed design guidance, whilst overallthe balance sheet was also positive.

Key Finding FourAiding the delivery of designquality is the major benefit ofcoding, although other factorsare also critical:

1.22 Overwhelmingly, where codes had beenused through to fruition on site theyreceived a strong endorsement fromthose who had been involved. Typically,it seems, coded schemes help to set newquality benchmarks in the locationswhere they are used, and act as flagshipdevelopments for the developers whoare involved (fig 1.19 West Silvertown).In particular they provide a valuabledelivery tool for the physical visionwhich they support and a means todeliver consistent quality thresholdsacross large-scale developments thatinvolve different developer and designteams.


15

1.23 Thus codes are having a beneficial effectin helping to deliver a more coherentpublic realm, resisting inappropriatedevelopment (fig 1.20 Hastings & 1.21Swindon), generally raising theimportance and profile of design, and inencouraging the appointment of betterquality designers than would otherwisebe the case (fig 1.22 Upton). Moreover,if highways authorities are responsive totheir potential, codes can help toovercome undesirable roads-dominatedhighways solutions by questioningstandard approaches to the design of thepublic realm. However, no single modelfor design codes exists, and given theright context, a range of approachesalong a prescription/flexibilitycontinuum seem capable of deliveringquality. Furthermore design codes seemequally suited to help deliver qualitycontemporary as well as qualitytraditional architectural solutions (figs1.23, 1.24 Cambourne, 1.25 Swindon &1.26 Greenwich).

Fig 1.20 Hastings, coding to prevent inappropriate development

Fig 1.22 Upton, better quality design teams


16

Fig 1.21 Swindon, coding for a coherent public realm

Fig 1.23 Cambourne, use of traditional exemplars

Fig 1.24 Cambourne, use of contemporary exemplars

Fig 1.25 Swindon, coding for traditional townscape elements

Fig 1.26 Greenwich, contemporary architecture

1.24 Other detailed design guidance tools canalso help to deliver design quality, andfor many of the same reasons: the abilityto establish a vision and use designguidance to co-ordinate resources,processes, actors and aspirations todeliver it. However, designs of verydifferent quality can still be producedusing the same design code (or otherdetailed design guidance), emphasisingthe critical importance of other factors aswell: the quality of the designer,the determination and resources of thosecharged with implementing the code,and the aspirations and ability of thedeveloper.


17

Fig 1.27 Upton, timeline of the coding and approvals process

Key Finding FiveCoding per se has little bearingon speed, but the pursuit ofquality does:

1.25 The speed of initial code productiondepends on the range of stakeholdersinvolved and their working relationships,and on the extent of existing designwork (i.e. whether a masterplan isalready in place). Given the rightcircumstances, incentives andinformation, draft codes can be preparedin as little as two or three months. Theirrefinement, agreement, and adoption, bycontrast, can take much longer – up totwo years (fig 1.27 Upton).

1.26 Formal development control processesdo not take longer for coded schemes.However, the periods running up to theoutline planning consent andsubsequent (first) reserved mattersapplication are typically very timeconsuming. This is regarded by manystakeholders as nothing out of theordinary, as all large sites today requiredetailed design guidance of one form oranother, and the pursuit of better design,and the process of securing consensusover detailed design, takes time. Indeedthe choice of coding per se seems tohave little bearing on the length of the

development or consents processes.Thus large-scale developments such asthose for which codes are typicallyprepared are complex, and theirprogress is dependent on a wide rangeof factors beyond the influence of thecode.

1.27 For example, a wide range ofbottlenecks occur at critical junctures,many tied to the failure to develop aconvincing partnership approach or astrong vision from the start; factors thatcan quickly undermine the commitmentto coding. Possible streamliningprocesses include:

1. Professional project management.

2. Dedicated local authority personnel.

3. Multidisciplinary (inclusive) projectteams.

4. Project champions.

5. Contracting out code preparation.

6. Fora for key decision-makers.

7. The use of delegated powers.


18

Fig 1.28 Hastings, coding ‘to create an adaptable pattern of development that can accommodate incremental change’

1.28 Most important is the need to involvehigh quality parcel designers tocreatively interpret codes and producedesigns which accord with them withoutthe need for significant time consumingnegotiations (fig 1.28 Hastings).Moreover, compliant schemes are likelyto receive permissions without delay,whilst non-compliant schemes will befurther held up – providing a readyincentive to deliver quality. Experiencealso shows that over time the process ofapplying for and obtaining reservedmatters consents becomes more efficient,whilst it is also expected that increasedfamiliarity of teams with coding willincreasingly streamline their preparation.Importantly, other forms of designguidance showed similar costs andbenefits, with significant up-frontinvestment offset by increasinglyefficient processing of phases asdevelopments commence.


19

Fig 1.29 West Silvertown, a degree of standardisationprovides developers with certainty

Key Finding SixCoding can help to deliver a morecertain design and developmentprocess:

1.29 Coding can help to guarantee that a setlevel of quality will be delivered acrossthe different phases of a development,safeguarding the investments ofdevelopers and purchasers alike. Codesalso provide certainty for developersapplying for reserved matterspermissions – as long as their schemesare code compliant – and when usedacross large sites, they assist developersto cost units (and thereby developments)with more certainty by introducing adegree of standardisation (fig 1.29 WestSilvertown). For non-compliant schemesthe opposite is true. The research alsosuggested that codes allow the selectionof development partners with greatercertainty that aspirations will becompatible, and that necessarynegotiations will be smooth.


20

Fig 1.30 Port Marine, design vision for waterfront areas Fig 1.31 Rotherham, land use plan1.30 Indeed detailed design guidance of all

types seems suited to deliver greatercertainty, in so doing allowingdevelopers to plan ahead in an efficientmanner to deliver a coherent vision (fig1.30 Port Marine). Significant uncertaintyexists, however, around the concept ofcoding itself, and when design guidanceis, or is not, coding – in whole or inpart. On this issue, coding need notnecessarily be considered distinct andseparate from other types of designguidance, but instead as a detailed formof prescription that complements andsits alongside, or even as part of, otherforms of design guidance (fig 1.31Rotherham). The analysis led to thesimple definition of design codes givenabove as a means to distinguish themfrom other forms of design guidance.


21

Key Finding SevenCodes can help to guide thedesign/development procurementprocess, setting explicit qualitybenchmarks from the start:

1.31 Implementation of any design guidancecan be all too easily undermined ifprocesses are not in place to consistentlyfocus on delivering quality outcomesfrom inception to completion. Onebenefit of coding has been the ability tochallenge the status quo ofhousebuilding, from concept designthrough to procurement andconstruction. Codes do this through anumber of means:

Codes can be used as an importantfeed into the design/developmentprocurement process, as part of theparcel briefing process or as the basisfor limited design competitions.

Codes help set quality aspirations thatnot all designers and developers areable to meet, and in doing so theyweed out such players early in theprocess. They help to establish a level playingfield for developers when tenderingfor projects, enabling an efficienttendering process based on clearquality benchmarks.They can provide a means to assesspotential parcel design/developmentteams and their proposals.

1.32 Because using codes in these waysinevitably requires a greater concentrationon design detail earlier in thedevelopment process than wouldotherwise be the case, a pre-selectionexercise prior to full tendering may helpto cut down the significant resourcesdevelopers will be required to invest inpreparing code-compliant bids.


22

Key Finding EightA wide range of means can beused to give codes greater status:

A wide range of approaches have beensuccessfully used to give codes status,including:

1. Formal adoption as supplementaryplanning guidance (SPG);

2. Adoption for development controlpurposes;

3. Conditioning through the outlineplanning process;

4. Use of development agreements;

5. Control of freehold rights;

6. As briefs for design competitions anddeveloper procurement processes;

7. Formal submission as reservedmatters information;

8. Various combinations of the above.

1.33 If intended as public documents and asa material factor in the making anddeciding of planning applications, thenformal adoption seems particularlyvaluable to enhance the status of codes.Indeed in the context of the newplanning policy framework ushered inwith the 2004 Act, most pilots expresseda wish to adopt their codes assupplementary planning documents(SPD) or as area action plans to givethem greater weight. However,transitional arrangements are being usedduring the switch to the new system,with codes instead being adopted asinterim development control guidance.Formal recognition of codes forhighways purposes also seems to behighly desirable to overcome highwaysand drainage adoption problems later(fig 1.32 Fairford Leys).

Fig 1.32 Fairford Leys, detailed specification of highways, landscaping and underground services

1.34 Some councillors remain concerned thatcodes could lead to a diminution of theirplanning powers in what are typicallylarge and locally significant projects.Without a culture change, such attitudesmay undermine the potential for codesto be adopted through LocalDevelopment Orders (LDOs). Theresearch also suggested that ifconditioning is used as a means to givestatus to design guidance of all types,careful wording is required to deliverthe right level of flexibility or firmnessthat the authority is seeking.


23

Fig 1.33 Port Marine, conceptual masterplan of ‘green network’ and wildlife corridors

Key Finding NineKey skills are missing, and areneeded across the developmentteam:

1.35 A wide range of generic, disciplinaryand specialist skills and knowledge-setsare required to produce and use designcodes, and coding is certainly nosubstitute for a lack of design skills oneither side of the development process.An optimum process seems to requireappropriate coding skills/awareness inthree key places: in thelandowner/master development team,in the local authority (planning andhighways), and in the design team(s).

1.36 Design codes are essentially urbandesign tools, and of greatest concern isthe absence of urban design skills fromwithin local authorities, frequently tiedto a lack of resources to fill the gap.Where resources are available, externalconsultants can play a valuable role inhelping to fill any design skills gap, andcan usefully act as project champions.Indeed where trust and commitmentexists, landowners/master developershave sometimes been able to plug thegap by funding an ongoing urban designinput, for example by funding dedicatedstaff in the local authority or an externalconsultant. However, even where therequisite skills are in place, design codeteams frequently feel ill equipped tograpple with sustainability agendas,particularly where such issues falloutside of the planning remit.Sustainability is therefore typically dealtwith through general policy aspirationsrather than in actual coding, and is anarea where practice has yet to fullydevelop (fig 1.33 Port Marine).


24

Fig 1.34 Upton, the scope of the code1.37 Each code is to a large degree unique

and involves a learning process, and sobuilding appropriate processes to passon knowledge within teams can beimportant. Thus the research confirmedthe need for new players (individuals orstakeholders) to be thoroughly appraisedof previous decisions and of the contentof codes in order to ensure a continuityof interpretation and commitment. Otherforms of design guidance require anidentical set of skills and knowledgerequirements, in particular, design awaredevelopers, and cost aware designers(fig 1.34 Upton).


25

Fig 1.35 Cirencester, community consultation

Fig 1.36 Fairfield Park, roadway layouts

Key Finding TenEngagement should be technical,but a failure to engage keystakeholders from the start canfatally undermine codingprocesses:

1.38 If expressed in non-technical languageand in an accessible format, the coreprinciples contained in codes can beconsulted on as the critical ideasunderpinning the physical vision.However, because design codes arelargely technical documents, full-scalecommunity consultation is both difficultand is likely to be undesirable. Instead,community engagement should occurprior to coding, when the physicalvision is being defined. At this stage awide range of creative means can befound to involve the public andstakeholder groups. Communityplanning events with a focus onestablishing a broad physical visionseem to be particularly valuable inbuilding a consensus around the idea ofcoding and in establishing momentumtowards that end. Later, communities canbe kept informed about the codingprocess, with formal public consultationoccurring during any code adoptionexercise (fig 1.35 Cirencester).

1.39 By contrast, the failure to engage all keytechnical stakeholders (external andinternal to organisations) can quicklyundermine trust in the work of codingteams and in design codes themselves.The highways authority in particular is akey technical stakeholder that should beinvolved from the start of the codingprocess. The research showed that earlyinvolvement can help to overcomeresistance to up-dating highwaysstandards, as well as frequent problemsin agreeing appropriate standards foradoption (fig 1.36 Fairfield Park).


26

Fig 1.37 Cirencester, flowchart of the approvals process

Fig 1.38 Cambourne, Masterplanning principles

Key Finding ElevenCoding processes can vary, butshould typically build upon andinterpret a spatial vision for thesite:

1.40 Coding is an integral part of widerdevelopment processes that for a codeddevelopment would typically involvestages of:

1. Inception;

2. Development partner selection;

3. Masterplanning;

4. Engagement;

5. Outline approvals processes;

6. Code design;

7. Land disposal;

8. Development parcel design;

9. Detailed approvals processes; and

10. Delivery on site(fig 1.37 Cirencester).

1.41 Codes have been produced at differentstages in the planning process, and thetiming influences the appropriatecontent. If produced prior to the outlineplanning consent they tend to be morestrategic and less detailed in nature, andcan subsequently be supplemented byfurther detailed codes or developmentbriefs, for example on a parcel by parcelbasis. If produced post outline planningconsent (the usual arrangement) suchtechnical matters are likely to beincluded in the design code. Althoughcodes are sometimes produced prior tothe masterplan, experience from thecase studies suggested that thisarrangement is invariably problematicand should be avoided. Instead, a keyfeedback loop exists from the code tothe masterplan, which may need refiningin the light of coding (fig 1.38Cambourne).


27

1.42 No single definitive coding process isapparent, and the sequence of key stagescan vary. A typical process neverthelessreflects that of the hypothetical processrepresented above, incorporating:

A decision to code – clarifyingmotivations and defining theprocesses;The co-ordination of inputs – skillsand resources, roles and relationships;Understanding the context for coding– in policy and guidance, the site andany existing physical vision i.e. themasterplan;A code design process – devisingcontent and expressing it, and refiningthrough stakeholder engagement andadoption processes;Delivering the code – using the codefor development parcel design anddevelopment procurement, and forthe assessment and regulation ofresulting proposals; andManaging outcomes – via monitoringand enforcement, code evaluation andproject aftercare.

1.43 Sometimes codes are produced as ameans to interpret and implement otherforms of design guidance. Indeeddifferent contexts require differentdesign guidance responses, and

considerable inventiveness exists whendeveloping the right combination foreach development.

Key Finding TwelvePartnership working is requiredbut also clear leadership:

1.44 A strong commitment to partnership,working between partners and withinorganisations is a pre-requisite forsuccessful and efficient coding, althoughthe case studies confirmed that thedecision to adopt a coding process willnot by itself generate successfulpartnership working. Instead, codingneeds to be supported by all keystakeholders from the start if its potentialis to be realised and if genuinepartnership working is to be achieved.Indeed where consensus does not exist,teams seem to have difficulty findingmeans to resolve tensions.

1.45 A clear management structure can helpif established early on in order to driveprojects forward, for example workinggroups focusing on day to dayimplementation, reporting to a steeringgroup for key strategic decision-making.To aid this, bringing together keydecision-makers in one place atimportant junctures seems critical to

help maintain momentum, as does acontinuity of key players over time.The research indicated that other formsof detailed design guidance also requirethe same consensus-based approach inorder to garner stakeholder support fromthe outset.

1.46 Clear leadership is also critical tosuccessful coding, this can come fromlandowners, developers, local authorityofficers or code designers, and without itan overly time and resource intensivecoding process will result. However,confusion can exist about leadershiproles, reflecting unresolved tensionsbetween regulatory, design anddevelopment responsibilities. More oftenthan not, successful examples of codingseem to be characterised by one partyor another being strongly motivated toachieve quality, acting in effect as adesign champion, and persuading otherparties to sign up to that vision. Fortheir part, involving councillors earlywithin the coding process can help togain their support, lead to a smootherplanning process, and give councillorsthe necessary confidence to delegatereserved matters decisions to officers onthe basis of design codes.


28

Fig 1.39 Cirencester, the code draws upon the Costwolds vernacular

Finding ThirteenCodes sit as the most detailedlevel in a hierarchy of policy andguidance to which they need tohave regard, and in which theirstatus should be made clear:

1.47 Coded schemes usually follow a linearprocess of design development, withsuccessive layers of policy and guidanceadding layers of prescription, andculminating in a code. Thus designcodes provide the most prescriptivelevel in a hierarchy of design policy andguidance, and as such should buildupon principles already establishedelsewhere. In particular, the researchsuggested that careful attention isrequired by code designers to existingpolicy and guidance frameworks inorder to avoid abortive work. For thepublic sector, the hierarchy of policy andguidance needs clarifying from place toplace to establish where and whendesign codes take precedence (fig 1.39Cirencester).

1.48 Whatever the exact local hierarchy,development plan policies provideimportant means to require that codesbe prepared for certain types of site;whilst codes themselves are frequentlyprepared to satisfy a condition to anoutline planning consent requiring thatdetailed (often unspecified) designguidance be prepared. Reference togovernment guidance and to analytical,consultative and other policy/guidancework can also help to legitimisethe content of codes. Finally, thepreparation of new detailed designguidance of all types provides a readyopportunity to work with highwaysauthorities to question and supersedeany outdated highways standards.


29

Fig 1.40 Newcastle Walker Riverside, approvals process flowchart highlighting the role of the design code

Key Finding FourteenIntegrated assessment processescan help to deliver a robustdelivery tool:

1.49 Assessment of schemes against designcodes can be successfully undertakenby either the local planning authority,landowner/funder/master developer,code designer or other design advisor,or by various combinations of theabove. In the latter case, bringingall key regulatory, funding andlandowner/master developerstakeholders together to makeassessments of parcel proposals has thebenefit of ensuring that one co-ordinatedset of comments, from one point ofcontact, is produced. By contrast, whereseparate processes of assessment areundertaken, parcel developers cansometimes feel trapped in the middle.

1.50 The process of landowner teams and/ortheir representatives assessing thecompliance of parcel designs with codesprior to formal planning applications hasalso been very effective. Theinvolvement of code designers in suchassessment processes can help to ensureconsistency in assessment, overcomepotential skills and knowledge gapsbetween code designers and code

controllers, and allow some on-goingadaptation in the interpretation of codesas circumstances require (fig 1.40Newcastle Walker Riverside).

1.51 However implemented, codes areperceived to be robust tools forcontrolling design that are difficult tochallenge at appeal. To aid developmentcontrollers to play their part in theseprocesses, in assessing compliance forreserved matters purposes, theincorporation of easy to use checklists incodes, establishing a requirement that a‘statement of compliance’ be submittedfrom applicants, and undertakingappropriate training in how to use thecode, can all raise levels of confidenceand competence amongst controllers.


30

Fig 1.41 Rotherham, flowchart of the code productionand approvals process

Key Finding FifteenCreative means to monitor codesand consistency in requiringcompliance are required:

1.52 Codes are likely to be fatallyundermined if enforcement is weak. Butenforcement was considered difficultand time-consuming, with thoseresponsible resigned to the fact thatunless problems are identified duringconstruction and before the sale of adwelling, then it is unlikely thatbreaches will be enforced. Unfortunatelythe complexity of many codes suggeststhat they will be difficult to enforcewithout retaining the original codedesigners.

1.53 The advanced codes reflected this lattermodel, and were in the main monitoredby landowners and their consultantteams, with enforcement viadevelopment/land sale agreements; amechanism that has proved veryeffective at ensuring compliance. Bycontrast the non-code case studies

tended to rely on local authoritymonitoring and enforcement, with lessoverall success. Significantly, the pilotssuggested that it will be local authoritieswho are primarily responsible formonitoring and enforcing compliance inthe future, primarily through normalplanning and highways processes (fig1.41 Rotherham).

1.54 However, the very presence of codeshave generally helped to ensure thatbreaches are kept to a minimum,although training and additionalresources are required to systematicallymonitor compliance. For public realmissues, the sanction held by highwaysauthorities to refuse to adopt streetworks has also been particularlyeffective at ensuring compliance.Beyond highways matters, legal meansto ensure compliance are being exploredby some pilots, including developmentagreements, land covenants, and Section106 agreements. An additional option isfor developers to fund a complianceofficer within the local authority.


31

1.55 The evidence from the research showedthat coding for architectural design isboth possible and popular. Typicallybased on an analysis of local context,such matters are often advisory but aresometimes mandatory, whilst the stylespursued through coding range fromhistoric/traditional to contemporary (fig1.43 Cambourne). However, differentcharacter areas are typically defined byurban design controls rather than on thebasis of architectural styles.

Finding Sixteen Codes concentrate on urban design criteria, but architectural coding is popular (fig 1.42 Swindon):


32

Fig 1.42 Swindon, architectural coding

Fig 1.43 Cambourne, traditional precedents


33

1.56 Codes (and other forms of detaileddesign guidance) reflect a comparableset of design aspirations: mainly‘traditional’ urban design with perimeterblock urban forms, better integrationwith surroundings, and a high qualitypublic realm (fig 1.44 Swindon). Streetsare typically coded as a series of generichierarchical types with different profilesand standards, and parking courts (fig1.45 Ashford) are favoured as thedominant means of taming the impact ofparked cars on the street scene. Withinthis context codes for built form andtownscape concerns were oftenextensive, serving aesthetic, urbanisticand functional purposes, including thepursuit of natural surveillance. Openspace issues, by contrast, are usuallycoded on the basis of specific spacesclearly identified in the masterplan, andissues of land use and unit mix arerarely coded at all. Instead, theadaptability of buildings to different usesis prioritised, alongside attempts toinfluence unit sizes and types (fig 1.46Newcastle Walker Riverside).

Fig 1.44 Swindon, coding for public realm and townscape

Fig 1.45 Ashford, parking courts

Fig 1.46 Newcastle Walker Riverside, open space requirements


34

Fig 1.47 Swindon, coding related to sustainability... indirectly

1.57 Coding for specific public realmproducts seems to be particularlyproblematic if EU procurement practicesare to be observed, requiring genericprescriptions or performance standards,rather than product specifications.Coding for sustainability also seemedproblematic (fig 1.47 Swindon), withcodes being high on aspiration, but lowon actual prescription to address theseissues.


35

Key Finding SeventeenCodes need to be robustworking documents that carefullydistinguish mandatory fromadvisory components, and shouldbe user-friendly:

1.58 No single format for codes is apparent,and instead codes are structured,expressed and presented in light of localcircumstances. The consensus isnevertheless that diagrams, tables ofrequirements (fig 1.48 Newcastle WalkerRiverside), detailed plans, sketches andprecedent illustrations (fig 1.49Cirencester) should be dominant(although in practice text oftendominates) and that photographs shouldbe illustrative (fig 1.50 Swindon). Carefulexpression is also required to distinguishmandatory from advisory components ofcodes.

Fig 1.48 Newcastle Walker Riverside, table of requirements

Fig 1.49 Cirencester, sketch illustrations showing requirements


36

Fig 1.50 Swindon, illustrative photographs of desired outcomes


37

Fig 1.51 Hastings1.59 Detailed analysis of the content of the

case study design codes suggests thefollowing good practice:

Codes should begin with a succinctguide to their use, and with anexplanation of how they relate to thephysical vision.Codes should systematically andgradually break down elements of thebuilt environment for users, movingfrom strategic to detailed concerns.Enough detail is required to giveclarity and certainty, but precision tolegal standards is not required (fig1.51 Hastings).Specific codes should be justified.Codes that are too succinct, as aresult, also seem to be open to greaterinterpretation.Ambiguous aspirational statementsshould be avoided.

2D illustrations (fig 1.52 Ashford),often combining annotated plans andsections (especially sections of streettypes), can obviate the need for 3Dimages.Careful cross-referencing betweendifferent elements in codes can aidnavigation.Consistency of page layouts (fig 1.53Greenhithe), attention to documentstructure, and clear numbering ofpages and sections are allrecommended.

1.60 A testing exercise can help to refine thecontent and particularly the expressionof codes, for example where jargon isundermining comprehension. Therefore,if appropriately presented, codes mighteven be used for promotional purposesbeyond their core audience.


38

Fig 1.52 Ashford Fig 1.53 Greenhithe


39

Fig 1.54 GreenhitheKey Finding EighteenCodes are deliberatelyprescriptive and tend to beinflexible in the short-term, butare not fixed entities and shouldbe capable of evolving throughouttheir life:

1.61 The key audiences for codes areperceived to be parcel developers andtheir designers, as well as developmentcontrol officers. Coding teams wereoften adamant that any design guidancethat allows too much interpretation bythese audiences will lead to conflictsthat need to be resolved through time-consuming negotiations. Therefore, mostcodes were seen as deliberatelyprescriptive and inflexible tools,primarily meant for a professionalaudience.

Some argued that a danger of over-prescription in design guidance (of anyform) is the inflexibility it engenders inthose responsible for the code’simplementation and regulation, evenwhen design improvements are beingproposed by applicants. They concludedthat negotiation should be possible onthe basis of codes, particularly ifalternative schemes promise benefitsover and above those offered by thecode. Furthermore, because codedprojects are often large scale anddeveloped over extended periods oftime, codes need to be flexible enoughto deal with changing circumstancesover the long-term (fig 1.54 Greenhithe).


40

Fig 1.55 Fairford Leys1.62 In this regard code principles should not

be seen as set in stone, but capable –through due process – of negotiatedinterpretation, for example whereconflicts become apparent. Moreover, awillingness is required to update codesin the light of early experience of theiruse, and formal review dates might beestablished from the start. The researchconfirmed that codes tend to evolvethroughout their use, being eitherformally or informally evaluated andrevised.

1.63 An alternative favoured in some projectswas the use of code supplements ormini codes/design briefs for each newparcel as and when they come forwardfor development. These tools can – asappropriate – refine, up-date andinterpret the main code, and therebyavoid the need for a complete review.However, if considerable flexibility isrequired from design guidance over theshort-term and throughout its life, it maybe more appropriate that other forms ofguidance are used from the start (fig1.55 Fairford Leys).

Key Finding NineteenCodes can be managementas well as delivery tools:

1.64 As well as coding for specific designcharacteristics, design codes can codefor process issues. This might includeguidance on submission requirementsfor reserved matters applications, orestablishing roles and responsibilitieswithin the coding process, laying outevaluation or engagement procedures,identifying relationships to other designpolicy/guidance tools, and so forth.

1.65 Codes can also have a role in the long-term management of developments, butthis requires that an appropriate systembe set in place to tie the code into theseon-going processes. This can beachieved through planning powers,establishing local managementcompanies, restrictions placed oninhabitants at the point of sale, or theprovision of post-completion designguidance based on the code. Thepotential for codes to managedevelopments following their completionis not currently being systematicallyconsidered.


41

Fig 1.56 Newhall

Fig 1.57 Cambourne

1.66 The research suggested that designcodes are – in appropriate circumstances– valuable tools to deliver a range ofmore sustainable processes andoutcomes from development. Theresearch sought to test the impact ofdesign coding on a number of possibleoutcomes: on the speed and certaintyof the development process; the qualityof outcomes; the co-ordination ofstakeholder activities and aspirations;inclusion of the community in thedesign process; and, with regard to theeconomic costs and benefits of coding.

1.67 The research suggested that as aparticularly robust form of designguidance, design codes can play a majorrole in delivering better qualitydevelopment, and this should be themajor rationale for supporting them.They also have a significant role to playin delivering a more certain design anddevelopment process, and – if properlymanaged – can provide the focusaround which teams of professionalstakeholders can integrate their activities,delivering in the process a moreco-ordinated and consensus driven

process. For this, they require asignificant up-front investment in timeand resources from all parties, althoughfor commercial interests, this seems tobe more than returned in the enhancedeconomic value that better design and astronger sense of place can deliver.

1.68 To deliver on their potential, codeprocesses need to be designedspecifically to accommodate theparticularities of the stakeholder, site andlocal policy/guidance context in whichthey are to be utilised. As design codesare just one possibility amongst a rangeof detailed design guidance options, it isimportant to understand where theyshould and should not be used. In thisregard, they would not normally be ofvalue for small sites where only onedeveloper and design team is involved.Conversely, codes seem most valuablewhen sites possess one or more of thefollowing characteristics:

Large sites (or multiple smaller relatedsites) that will be built out over a longperiod of time;Sites in multiple ownership; and


42

Overarching conclusions

Sites that are likely to be developedby different developers and/or designteams (figs 1.56 Newhall & 1.57Cambourne).

1.69 Evidence of the benefits of design codeson other factors was less clear. Codes ontheir own do not deliver a fasterplanning or development process, andhave no significant role to play inbuilding consensus within communities.With regard to speed, this seems to beno different to other forms of detaileddesign guidance which can also deliverthe benefits described above, but, likecoded schemes, are influenced by acomplex range of factors that determinethe length of the development process,few of which relate to the choice of theguidance tool itself. Moreover, codesmake no discernable difference to thelength of the formal stages of theplanning process, although the processof applying for and obtaining reservedmatters consents can, over time, bemore streamlined and predictable. Somepointers were nevertheless identified tohelp streamline coding processes andthese are presented in the detailedfindings above.

1.70 With regard to the issue of communitybuy-in, as primarily technical documents,few codes seem to play a significant rolein helping to engage the community inthe design process, but then neither doother forms of very detailed designguidance that are used to supplementa masterplan vision. Typically, themasterplan provides the correct vehiclefor community engagement, a process inwhich codes and other forms of detaileddesign guidance can play only asupportive role.

1.71 Certainly large complex sites shouldbenefit from detailed design guidanceof some description, which should beproduced as a means to help deliverdesign quality, certainty of process,stakeholder co-ordination, and(potentially) enhanced value. Codesseem particularly suited to this role, butwill only ever have a supportive role toplay. They, in turn, need to besupported by a range of other equallyimportant factors: by the right designskills; developers who are committed toquality; an enlightened highwaysauthority; and by a consensus betweenkey stakeholders concerning the visionfor the site and the strategy for itsimplementation.


43


44

2 Decision to code The first key decision for stakeholders will be whether, for particular sites, design coding is the right way forward.This will be affected by stakeholder motivations and views regarding the use and utility of design coding. Keydecisions about the process to be adopted in particular cases will start to be made at this point.

ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES

Chapter 2 Ch 3 Ch 4 Ch 5 Ch 6 Ch 7 Chapter 8

45

2.1 The pilots revealed a range ofmotivations for their engagement withdesign coding. The most frequent werethat design codes possessed thepotential to improve the design qualityof development, and that they held outthe promise of a faster planningapprovals process.

2.2 Taking the latter first, developers weremainly motivated by securing necessaryapprovals in a timely manner and wereattracted by the promise of quickerconsents, particularly for the later phasesof their developments. Authoritiesseemed less concerned with speed, butnevertheless saw potential efficiencygains in a smoother development controlprocess, aided by anticipated designcode checklists. In a context of specialistdesign staff shortages this seemedparticularly attractive to some localauthorities. However Ashford, whoaspired to a more checklist-basedapproach, were disappointed when theircode’s complexity undermined this. Fortheir part, Swindon, felt that a genericdesign code would avoid the need forvery detailed plans for each parcel ofland, so cutting down design andnegotiation time.


46

MotivationsSUMMARY

Overwhelmingly, those involved in design coding are involved for one reason, thepotential to improve development quality.

Landowners and developers often hope for a corresponding increase in the value oftheir investment, whilst all stakeholders aim to create development with character anda sense of place.

Some developers hope that codes will be able to deliver a faster planning process.

Stakeholders hope that codes will deliver a process built on consensus rather thanconflict, one that will be more certain and predictable.

The potential of codes is believed to rest in their ability to co-ordinate outputs fromdifferent developers/designers across large sites and to integrate different design elementswith a forcefulness that other forms of guidance cannot match.

Other forms of detailed design guidance are produced for largely the same reasons,typically to raise the quality of design and distinguish developments for marketingpurposes.

Detailed design guidance of all types is variously viewed as a safety net and/or as aspringboard to excellence.

2.3 In Hastings the opposite was the case,and initial views there suggested that thecode had been imposed externally andwas actually slowing down the planningprocess and delaying development.Although the potential benefits of codingwere understood, because the code hadbeen introduced late in the designprocess – two years after the project’scommencement – the developmentprocess itself had to be put on hold toallow the code to catch up. Plannersnevertheless believed that the codeshould lead to a smoother developmentcontrol process. In this case, the processof actually producing the codes led tosome views changing, with a greateracceptance of the potential of codesemerging by the end of the monitoringand evaluation period.

2.4 Local authorities were more interested inthe potential, as they saw it, to improvethe quality of development. Mostbelieved that the presence of designcodes themselves could raise the overallstandards of design by encouragingdevelopments that were distinctive andwhich avoided the use of ‘standardhouse types’. Authorities wereparticularly keen that the pilot schemesshould establish quality benchmarks,both for future phases of the

developments in the pilot programme,but also for future developments withintheir local authority boundaries. Ashford,for example, saw codes as anopportunity to establish a high qualitypublic realm, and to co-ordinate designintentions between parcels.

2.5 Two other major motivations wereexpressed. First, that codes would givegreater certainty to developers, inparticular by reducing theinconsistencies in advice that theysometimes received. Local authoritiesalso saw benefits in this respect, in theircase in the greater certainty about thequality of the end product that would bedelivered over successive phases ofdevelopment, particularly acrossdifferent developers. All stakeholdersalso saw potential long-term benefits inthe enhanced communication betweenparties that codes could deliver. It wasenvisaged that the early collaborationrequired to produce the codes could notonly help to deliver the code, but alsoenhance mutual understanding andworking relationships. Three pilot teamshad found the Enquiry by Designprocess or other community planningevents particularly useful in building aconsensus around the idea of producing

a code and in establishing a momentumto that end.

2.6 Additional motivations were revealed inSwindon and Rotherham. In Swindon,the code will be submitted to dischargea condition to the outline planningdecision. In Rotherham, because codeswere seen as part of a demonstrationproject promoting high qualitydevelopment, it was believed they couldraise the profile and perception of thearea and in so doing enhance thechances of attracting Europeanregeneration monies for land assemblyand development.

2.7 Because the motivations varied, thedriving force behind the different codingprojects also varied and in the differentpilots was variously the local authority,the developer, the local regenerationagency, the designer, and EnglishPartnerships. In a number of the pilotsthis manifested itself in perceptionsamongst other stakeholders that theyhad been pressured into accepting thecoding process. Negative views aboutkey aspects of the process inevitablyfollowed.

2.8 The teams associated with the advancedcoding schemes were overwhelminglydriven by one motivation – the delivery

DECISIONTO CODE

Chapter 2

47

of better quality design, and speed didnot enter as a factor into theirdeliberations. Typically, deriving from anearly/mid 1990s context, these schemesrepresented reactions to the generallypoor standard of speculative housingdevelopment of the era, and to adetermination by one or morestakeholders that they could dosomething better, and in so doing raisethe value of their investment.

2.9 West Silvertown, for example, wasinspired by the Urban Village concept.The intention there was to raise qualityand move beyond the suburban norm,whilst reassuring potential purchasersthat the development would be of highquality – throughout – and that thesocial housing elements would be bothwell designed and integrated. Effectively,the project was setting down a newquality benchmark for the area – theRoyal Docks – and in doing so, for theLondon Docklands DevelopmentCorporation (LDDC). In Lightmoor, theintention was to create an exemplardesign, both in its built form and publicrealm. In this case the code was viewedas a means to emulate the clear designand social principles that had guided thedevelopment of Bournville, helping to

deliver a sense of place as well ashigher prices for the houses for sale.

2.10 In the other case studies, for a range ofdifferent reasons, design was theprimary motivation:

In Upton, the drive to secure higherquality development was driven bythe desire to comply with the newnational Planning Policy Guidance, forexample in PPG1 (1997) and PPG3(2000), and to use the land moreefficiently in a sustainable manner. In Newhall, the landowner/promotersbelieved that design could be used tooptimise the value of theirdevelopment over the medium tolong-term and that codes would helpdeliver this through creating a moredistinctive place for a niche market –contemporary design at higherdensities. At Hulme, the desire was simply touse higher quality development as ameans to avoid repeating the mistakesof the earlier housing on the site, andthereby to meet the aspirations ofresidents.

The presence of a listed building andgrounds at Fairfield Park representedthe driving forces for a better quality,more distinctive design, as did thelocal authority’s concern about thepoor standard of housing designelsewhere in the district.Whilst in Fairford Leys, the intentionwas simply to increase quality overand above the volume housebuildernorm, in particular by controlling thequality of public space, whilst givingflexibility to housebuilders over mixand type of housing in order to meettheir market assessments.

2.11 A range of related secondary motivationswere expressed, each clearly related tothe primary motivation to improvedesign quality. The first two werefrequently cited, the remainder in singlecases:

The potential to co-ordinate theoutputs of separate developers acrossdifferent parcels, particularly whenparcels are sold to developers outsidethe original consortium.A belief that codes offered the abilityto deliver an integrated approach todesign that normal guidance was notstrong enough to deliver.


48

To guarantee compliance with themasterplanning principles of anagreed scheme (i.e. the competitionwinning scheme in Greenwich).The value of codes in helping toco-ordinate the work of separatearchitects across a project to establisha seamless built form.The use of design coding as aneffective marketing tool, as a means todemonstrate the desire to create acontext where little existed before.A tool for dialogue and debate,flexible enough to allow for changingmarketing strategies, but robust inprinciple to deliver the vision.A long-term management interest inparts of the development (in the caseof the Bournville Village Trust).To establish a flagship development toinspire other projects in the area.

2.12 The non-code developments weresimilarly inspired to produce their rangeof design guidance by a desire to riseabove the norm and distinguish their

developments for marketing and otherreasons. The approach at NewcastleGreat Park evolved over a considerableperiod of time driven by the changingnational policy context for design, whilstat Port Marine, a co-ordinated responsewas required in order to maximise theregeneration potential of the area.At Greenhithe the high site remediationand restoration costs required thedevelopers to maximise the value of thesite through designing to a higherquality. Detailed design guidance wastherefore used to create a series ofdistinctive areas within the scheme thatmaximise the potential of existing on-site assets. For Cambourne, the guidancewas designed to enable the localauthority to control the quality of thedevelopment as a means to raisestandards. Here, as throughout the casestudies (code and non-code), whetherthe design guidance was viewed as asafety net or springboard to excellencewas more difficult to determine; a bit ofboth was typical.

DECISIONTO CODE

Chapter 2

49


50

DESIGN CODE REFERENCEWhat the codes contained: MotivationsThe stated purposes of coding in the pilot codes were diverse, although the six whoprovided a rationale were all seeking both better design quality and more certainty fordevelopers. Hastings nevertheless provided the caveat: “It should be remembered thatDesign Codes do not guarantee exceptional architectural design; that requires exceptionaldesigners”. By contrast one pilot mentioned the promotion of innovation and diversity indesign and three were motivated by the delivery of more sustainable development. Threepilots sought more certainty for communities – to be delivered through the planning process– whilst certainty for landowners and investors also received mention.

Rotherham’s aspirations for coding included facilitating revitalisation programmes. Theefficiency and effectiveness of planning through codes were only suggested once each(efficiency translating as speed), and four pilots gave speed as an explicit rationale.Newcastle qualified the claim, noting coding could speed up the planning process furtherdown the line, whilst Cirencester removed the rationale of “faster approvals” which hadbeen in their earlier draft.

The pilots mentioned better co-ordinated, more consistent development (twice) and betterco-ordination across multiple sites. Hastings argued that coding could “allow development totake place on a large scale within a short time period; through codes that promote and setout clear parameters for an ordered urban fabric”. In Cirencester, the council aspired toapply the coding principles to other developments within the area. Aldershot’s code, stillin draft form, was the only one which lacked any statement of purpose. With three of thepilots, the number of listed aspirations grew significantly in later drafts of their codes.

Six of the eight advanced cases sought better design quality. A wide range of othermotivations were mentioned, each in only one or two cases. These included betterco-ordination of stakeholders and the encouragement of “mutual understanding andcollaboration... between consultants and developer” (Greenwich) as well as a more efficientplanning process (by minimising disruptions).

DECISIONTO CODE

Chapter 2

51

Upton mentioned that the use of coding “plays a central role in the developer selectionprocess” and “should be seen as the starting point for a dialogue between developers andtheir design teams” – suggesting perhaps that coding helps to improve the standard ofdevelopment, in part because the use of coding has an influence on which developers anddesigners get involved in a project. Other outcome-related motivations mentioned includedmore sustainable development, and more certainty for both developers and communities– certainty for developers was only mentioned twice, and for communities, just once.Coding, it was argued, can enhance the effectiveness of planning because it fosters a moreconsistent approach which yields more consistent outcomes (for example, across multiplesites) and better serves planning policies and objectives.

Lightmoor noted that coding combines overall coherence with the promotion of areas ofindividual character. Hulme and Greenwich both went further to suggest that one aim ofcoding was to encourage variety and innovation in design. Fairfield suggested that theirpursuit of coding reflected government guidance. By contrast, Lightmoor’s aspiration was“to create a flagship example of how urban communities can be developed in the future...to act as a demonstration project”.

The nature of the four non-code documents varied. The stated aims also varied betweenbetter design quality, more sustainable development, and ensuring that the developmentcontrol approach was more comprehensive and/or that development was less piecemeal.One case specifically aspired to the better co-ordination of stakeholders.


52

The ProcessSUMMARY

Coding is an integral part of wider development processes that for a coded development would typically involve stages of inception,development partner selection, masterplanning, engagement, outline approvals processes, coding, land disposal, parcel design, detailedapprovals processes, and delivery on site.

Although codes are sometimes produced prior to the masterplan, experience from the case studies suggested that this arrangement isinvariably problematic and should be avoided.

Coded schemes usually follow a linear process of design development, with successive layers of guidance adding layers of prescription,and culminating in a code (or other form of detailed design guidance).

Codes have been produced at different stages in the development process, and the timing influences the appropriate content. If producedprior to the outline planning consent they tend to be more strategic and less detailed in nature, and can subsequently be supplemented byfurther codes on detailed matters. If produced post outline planning consent then these technical matters are likely to be included in thecode.

No single definitive coding process is apparent, and the sequence of key stages can vary.

A typical process would nevertheless encompass: a decision to code (clarifying motivations and defining the processes), the co-ordinationof inputs (skills and resources, roles and relationships), understanding the context for coding (in policy and guidance, the site and anyexisting physical vision i.e. the masterplan), a code design process (devising content and expression, refining through stakeholderengagement and adoption), delivering the code (using the code for parcel design and development procurement, and for the assessmentand regulation of resulting proposals), and managing outcomes (via monitoring and enforcement, and, perhaps, code evaluation andproject aftercare).

A key feedback loop exists from the code to the masterplan, which may need refining in the light of coding.

Sometimes codes are produced as a means to interpret and implement other forms of design guidance.

Different contexts require different design guidance responses, and considerable inventiveness exists when developing the rightcombination for each development.

2.13 A lack of clarity seemed to characterisesome of the coding processes beingadopted, with a ‘suck-it-and-see’approach often prevailing. Variouslystakeholders were confused about therelationship to the outline applicationprocess (i.e. whether codes should bepart of the permission, or follow onafter); about the relationship to themasterplan (before or after), and evenabout the relationship to detailedreserved matters applications. A lack ofclarity about the role and utility ofcoding was the result. In Cirencester, forexample, the code was produced priorto the masterplan, and even prior to thesite being formally adopted fordevelopment in the local plan. Theresult is that the council’s cabinet hasnot endorsed the code and the code hasbeen effectively ‘parked’ to awaitprogress on other fronts. In Aldershot,the consensus was that code preparationcame too early in the process, beforethe masterplan was fixed, and that anoptimum process would work up themasterplan sufficiently first in order toinform code production.

2.14 Elsewhere, code processes have beencarefully developed prior to inception,including in Swindon, where the processinvolved agreeing the content of the

codes, consulting, agreeing technicalrules, code design, and code approvals.Rotherham followed this path with aprocess encompassing analysis andcharacterisation, stakeholder engagementand consultation, initial code drafting(including of a regulating plan), furtherstakeholder engagement andconsultation, final code drafting, andadoption. Despite the evolutionarynature of some coding processes, thissimple linear sequential processcharacterised the pilots.

2.15 A key feedback loop seen in a numberof the pilots was the re-visiting andrefinement of the masterplan in light ofcoding design decisions, something thatsome pilots argued was particularly timeconsuming. In the case of Hastings,revisiting previous decisions relating tothe masterplan was seen to have beenprimarily the result of a change inconsultants and so, in retrospect,unnecessary. Others built into theirprocesses early workshops and events toagree the content of the codes(Aldershot), an early parallel stream toconsider highways matters alongsidemasterplanning and coding (Swindon),and formal processes to interrogate thecontent of their codes (two months inthe case of Swindon).

2.16 Significantly, when asked to draw theprocess, a few stakeholders saw thecoding process as a self-containedprocess in its own right with discreteinputs and outputs. Most, however, sawit as an integral part of the widerdevelopment process that involvedinception, developer selection,masterplanning, engagement, outlineapprovals, coding, land disposal, parceldesign, detailed approvals, and deliveryon site.

2.17 Detailed development briefs, frameworksor masterplans were all seen as possiblealternatives to coding, but often theexistence of the pilot programme itselfhad encouraged pilot stakeholders touse coding. Ashford, being the mostadvanced, had already made thedecision to use design coding prior tothe programme commencing. In thiscase, a condition to the outlinepermission required that applicantscomplete a design code/statement forevery phase of the project. Separateconsultants were used to produce theoverall project masterplan, the code, thelandscape design, and for the moredetailed masterplanning of each phase.Unfortunately, problems with the initialparcel designers led to considerabledelays, including to the re-design and

DECISIONTO CODE

Chapter 2

53

re-submission of Phase 1b of thedevelopment for reserved mattersconsent, and, as a result, to the need tore-visit the principles enshrined in thedesign code.

2.18 The advanced coding projectsdemonstrated that no single codingprocess was apparent, suggesting thatcodes and coding processes each needto be designed to reflect the particularpolicy, stakeholder and developmentcontexts within which they are to beused. Frequently, however, codes wereprepared as a result of a condition to anoutline planning consent, althoughinvariably the condition was unspecificabout the exact type of guidance thatneeded to be prepared. In Upton, forexample, the condition required that abrief be prepared, a requirement met bythe production of the code following anEnquiry by Design event. At FairfieldPark a condition to the outlinepermission and section 106 Agreementrequired the approval of a masterplanand design guide prior to submission ofreserved matters, whilst the code as partof an Urban Design Strategy has satisfiedthe requirement. For Lightmoor, bycontrast, a condition attached to theoutline planning permission requiredthat the development shall be in

accordance with the code. Here thecoding process involved:

1. Producing the code: developmasterplan, identify key designelements, test design, develop code,test code, finalise code, refinemasterplan, submit outlineapplication and coding document.

2. Use the code: brief developers,negotiate with prospective parceldevelopers/designers,developers/designers develop andsubmit tenders. Use the code toassess tenders and agree preferreddeveloper, negotiate to agreesubmission for detailed consents,submit reserved matters application,local authority use code to assessapplication.

3. Construction: use code to monitordelivery, parcel developer use codeto tender and monitor sub-contractors.

2.19 A limited competition held for WestSilvertown provided an alternative toconditioning as a means to ensure thedelivery of a code. Thus the masterplanand design principles were specified asa requirement for entrants, and built on

the framework plan for Victoria Dockthat had been prepared by the LDDC.

2.20 Some of the advanced coding projectsfeatured a wide range of designguidance types. The Newhall site wasallocated in the local plan and wasfollowed by the production of an urbandesign framework for the entiredevelopment. Next a detailed planningbrief was prepared for Phase 1, followedby an outline planning application, acondition of which required that adetailed masterplan and planning anddesign brief be prepared. The code itselfthen sets out the principles agreed aspart of the masterplanning process andis up-dated for each parcel of land,effectively acting as a brief forsuccessive developers.

2.21 Typically, however, a linear process ofdesign development was followed, withsuccessive layers of guidance addinglayers of prescription, and culminating ina code. In Fairfield Park, for example,an initial local authority developmentbrief with little reference to design wasfollowed by a landowner inspireddevelopment concept, leading to anoutline permission, followed by amasterplan and accompanying code. InGreenwich, a two-stage developer


54

competition selected a masterplan byRalph Erskine who also designed Phase1 of the project as a detailedarchitectural commission. Phase 2 alsogained consent but was rejected byEnglish Partnerships (the landowner) asnon-compliant with the masterplan. Thecode was commissioned as a privatedocument to guide the landownerpermissions process for this and othersub-phases of the development.

2.22 Hulme illustrated a similar process oflayering ever more detailed guidance,with an initial conceptual masterplanfollowed by a draft developmentframework and an initial version of thecode. In this case, however, perhapsreflecting the national planning policycontext of the early 1990s, the code waslater simplified and twice redesigned asthe perception at the time was that theinitial code (based on the precedent ofthe New Urbanist Seaside scheme) hadbeen overly prescriptive anddeterministic. The creation of the coderesembled a process of trial and error,not least because the initial housingdesigns informed the code creation, andvice-versa, but also because localconsultation on the overall vision forHulme fed into the refinement process.

2.23 The non-coded projects also showed adiverse range of processes and a similarlinear sequence of design developmentwith increasing layers of detail, andsometimes rather torturous means to getthere. These processes resulted in arange of tools to guide and controldetailed design, although coding wasnot at that time considered.Nevertheless, nothing inherent in theseprocesses implied that coding could nothave been used as an alternative.

2.24 Port Marine was initially allocated in thelocal plan as an Action Area. During thedetermination of two outline planningapplications, the local authorityproduced Supplementary PlanningGuidance for the site to set out theiraspirations and to inform the detaileddesign phase; work informed by anUrban Design Study commissioned as afeed into the SPG. The SPG itselfrequired that a detailed masterplan beprepared. In Cambourne, an agreedmasterplan and design guide have beensupplemented by Briefing Plans for eachphase of the development. The processwas laid down in a condition to theoriginal outline planning permission. InGreenhithe, by contrast, a developmentframework incorporating a masterplan

and design brief was followed by aCharacter Area Study incorporatingdetailed design statements for thedifferent parcels of the development.The Character Area Matrix that resultedresembles a code, but is lessprescriptive. It nevertheless adds a layerof detail to the masterplanningdocuments.

2.25 Perhaps the most complex process wasfollowed in Newcastle Great Park wheredesign guidance has developedincrementally. Initially the site wasincluded in the UDP, a planning brieffollowed, then a masterplan andsupplementary planning guidance. Theintention was to require a DesignStrategy Statement for each cell of themasterplan as each came forward fordevelopment. Outline permissionfollowed, but the emergence of PPG3 in2000 and a potential ‘call-in’ promptedthe preparation of a new more detailedmasterplan from the developer reflectingthe new national design principles. Thecity also produced written designguidance setting out urban design,landscape and highway design principlesfor the site. Following development ofthe first two cells in a ‘traditional’ style,a rethink encouraged by CABE led to a

DECISIONTO CODE

Chapter 2

55

new three-dimensional masterplan forthe remaining cells. The local authorityis now considering whether to adopt thenew plan.

2.26 The experiences across the advancedand non-code studies show endlessinventiveness, but also considerableindecisiveness. This has resulted fromchanging policy contexts, and the desireto find the right range of policy andguidance tools in each place to suit theparticular development, its broaderpolicy and stakeholder context, and theaspirations of those involved.


56

57

3 Co-ordinate inputsThe inception of a coding process will follow the basic decision to code and will encompass a process ofmarshalling and co-ordinating a wide range of inputs to the process. Key to this will be establishing the correct rolesand relationships between stakeholders, and organising for the necessary skills and resources to deliver the code.

ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES



58

Roles and relationshipsSUMMARY

Confusion can exist about leadership roles, reflecting unresolved tensions betweenregulatory, design and development responsibilities.

Clear leadership is critical to successful coding, this can come from landowners, developers,local authority officers or code designers, without it, a time and resource consuming coding process will result.

More often than not, successful examples of coding seem to be characterised by one party or another being strongly motivated to achievequality, acting in effect as a design champion, and persuading other parties to sign up to that vision.

A strong commitment to partnership working between partners and within organisations is therefore a pre-requisite for successful andefficient coding, although the decision to adopt a coding process will not by itself generate successful partnership working.

Coding needs to be supported by all key stakeholders from the start if its potential is to be realised and if genuine partnership working isto be achieved; where consensus does not exist, teams have difficulty finding means to resolve tensions.

Bringing together key decision-makers in one place at important junctures seems critical to maintain momentum, as does a continuity ofkey players over time.

A management structure needs to be established to drive projects forward, for example working groups focusing on day to dayimplementation, reporting to a Steering Group for key strategic decision-making.

Other forms of detailed design guidance require the same consensus-based approach in order to garner stakeholder support from the outset.

Involving councillors early within the coding process can help to gain their support, lead to a smoother planning process, and givecouncillors the confidence necessary to delegate reserved matters decisions to officers on the basis of the codes.

Key audiences for codes are perceived to be parcel developers and their designers, as well as development control officers.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

3.1 A particularly striking finding was the lackof clarity surrounding leadership roles andresponsibilities. Almost without exceptionconfusion reigned, often reflectingunresolved tensions and balances ofpower between those with developmentand regulatory responsibilities. Given thecorresponding finding that much of thedelay associated with coding in the pilotswas put down to the lack of managementand/or co-ordination within the pilotteams, this was significant.

3.2 Project champions were most frequentlycited (often by themselves) as the localplanning authority and the landowner/developer organisation. Others identifiedwith a leadership role included:

The masterplannersCABE enablers English PartnershipsOther local authorityservices/departments (i.e. urbanregeneration).

And to a lesser degree, for particularparts of the process:

The highways authorityParcel developers.

3.3 Sometimes this merely reflected aconfusion between broad strategicmanagement responsibilities (usually held

by the landowner and/or local authority)and responsibilities for driving a projectforward on a day-to-day basis (usuallythe respective consultants). The confusionseemed to breed two problems. First,problems concerning the clarity andstrength of leadership, and second,concerns over who was taking the client’srole. It betrayed a failure to use codingas an opportunity to move beyond‘traditional’ confrontational relationshipswithin the development process andto forge genuine partnerships.

3.4 Perhaps significantly, councillorinvolvement was minimal in almostall of the pilots, although they hadplayed a key role in at least one caseby establishing a condition to the outlineplanning permission requiring thatcodes be prepared. Only in Swindondid councillor involvement seem to bemore significant, through the bimonthlyCouncillor/Officer Task Force to steerthe local authority input into theprocess. In addition, a Council ProjectBoard and a separate Joint Project Boardwith the developer both have councillorrepresentation. The councillors werenot initially aware of what theimplications of the codes might be,namely subsequent reserved mattersdecisions might by-pass them by using

delegated authority. However theirinvolvement has ensured that thisprinciple has been fully aired, in partbecause the process has allowed theirconcerns to be taken on board at anearlier stage. Elsewhere, involvementwas usually restricted to councillorsattending the various coding workshopsand consultation events. Only oneexample was seen of councillors beingcriticised for undermining the content ofcodes, in that case by imposing pre-conceived ideas at the end of theprocess about the level of parkingstandards (increasing them).

3.5 Despite the questions over leadership,most pilots have developed formalor informal working arrangements tomanage the coding process. For example,in Aldershot, a Steering Committeechaired by English Partnerships meetsevery two to three months, with focusedworking groups (e.g. dealing withhighways) meeting weekly, co-ordinatedby the consultant masterplanners.However, despite the number andfrequency of meetings, there waswidespread frustration about theinability of the meetings to move theproject forward. This was partly as aresult of differing opinions betweenthe landowner and the local authority

COORDINATEINPUTS

Ch 3

59

on the level of prescription and role ofthe code. Most of the meetings discussedthe practicalities of the masterplan, andthere was relatively little discussion ofthe code. By the end of the monitoringand evaluation process, agreement wasemerging that, as the local authorityneeded to play the key role in enforcingthe code, it should be playing a moreproactive role in its generation.

3.6 In Cirencester, a Steering Grouphas been established and meets onan ad hoc basis to comment on thecode at key stages. The group includesrepresentatives from highways, thedeveloper, planning, the code designers,CABE, and community representatives.Elsewhere, decision-making paths havebeen less clear, seemingly reflecting theinformal nature of local agreements toco-operate, for example in Rotherham orHastings. In the latter case, despite thetechnical Working Group producing thedraft code in a timely manner, the failureto agree early on about the possiblebenefits of coding and to establishappropriate delivery mechanisms hasled to a lack of commitment to theoutcomes and to some disillusionment.Fortunately, interviewees reported thatcommunication had improved over thecourse of the pilot project, and as a

consequence decision-making processeshad also become more streamlined.

3.7 In Ashford, difficulties with communicationand partnership working have led tosimilar problems, and to parties actingunilaterally. The situation has left allstakeholders unhappy with the code,whilst their difficulties in agreeing a finaldraft have greatly delayed its adoption.Stakeholders commented that the mostfruitful experience was the workshops,where all key decision-makers weretogether in one place, and where, as aresult, real progress was made. Theinitiative saved much time early on, butdecision-making structures used since thenhave failed to maintain the momentum.

3.8 In Rotherham, the failure to engagewith the key developer has meant thathe unilaterally submitted a planningapplication that ignored the code.Although this was refused, the experienceraised questions about the need toencourage buy-in from all keystakeholders – particularly landownersand developers – if codes are to delivertheir vision. In this case the refusaleffectively led to a further distancing ofthe developer from the coding project,and to a concern on his part that he wasbecoming sidelined. In sites like this with

complex landownerships and conflictingaspirations, it may be difficult to deliveron the potential of coding unless allstakeholders are on-board from the start.

3.9 Amongst the advanced case studies,a strong commitment existed topartnership working as a means toencourage the full range of stakeholdersto buy-in to the codes. In West Silvertowna belief had existed that all stakeholdersneed to buy into the code early in theprocess, and that this needs to be lockedinto the planning process. Mostinterviewees commented that thecomplexity of the projects and the numberof players necessitated a positive workingenvironment and consensus around keyobjectives. Typically, as in Upton andLightmoor, layers of management groupsneeded to be established to drive projectsforward, with working groups focusing onday-to-day implementation and meetingfortnightly, reporting to a Steering Groupfor key strategic decision-making. InFairfield Park a partnership of key actors(main developer and local authority)helped to generate and refine the codes,whilst parcel developers were invited toseparate meetings to consider theemerging guidance.


60

3.10 Consensus working extended to internalrelationships within local authorities, andin Newhall, the local authority has takena development team approach, includingrepresentatives from planning, design,engineering and housing services,and from the county urban designand highways groups. A key objectivewas to establish highways and drainageprinciples in consultation with theEnvironment Agency and highwaysauthority that were both innovativeand adoptable. Through thisinvolvement, the district’s own highwayengineer was motivated to helpconvince the Highways Authority thatthe innovations were acceptable.

3.11 Leadership was typically provided bythe landowner, often supported by, ordevolved down to, the code designers.In West Silvertown, the LDDC aslandowner and initially as planningauthority were in a strong position tocommit the other development partnersto deliver the code. They were centralto the drive for quality, but relied on thecode designers for the skills and visionthat made developers see the benefits.Fairford Leys represented a landowner-led quality agenda, supported by thelocal authority (although only after-the-fact). In this case, the parcel developers

were only involved after the code hadbeen written, and remained concernedabout the level of prescription andcommercial realism, despite beingsupportive of the general effort to deliverquality. There the day-to-day processwas led and managed by the codedesigner, who co-ordinated discussionswith planning and highways authoritiesand with the Environment Agency.

3.12 Lightmoor, Newhall, and Greenwichall followed similar patterns, with thelandowner/development consortiapushing for quality, but relying on askilled design team to make assessmentsagainst the codes as individual proposalscome forward – essentially a qualitycontrol role. Upton was slightly different,with English Partnerships as landowner,client and funding agency taking a strongleadership role on almost every aspect ofthe project, often in partnership with thelocal authority. Only Fairfield Park sawthe local authority take the lead role;requiring design guidance, extractinga contribution from the developer andcommissioning the code. In this case,involvement of key players at an earlystage helped to establish commitmentto quality and tie down the multipledevelopers to a common vision. Onlythe Police Liaison Officer refused to

buy into the vision, rejecting the wholenotion of perimeter blocks and rearparking courtyards and as a consequencebecoming isolated from the process.

3.13 The complexity of the consensusbuilding task was demonstrated byLightmoor, who exhibited the followingline-up of key stakeholders:

English Partnerships (landowner andfunder – 50%)Bournville Village Trust (funder – 50%)parcel developer, phase 1parcel designer, phase 1masterplanner and code designermarketing agentlandscape architectsengineersenvironment consultantcost consultantplanning supervisorproject managerPR consultantchamber of commercecommunity representatives (two parishcouncillors)project champion (Head of Planning)councillors (two wards)highways authorityplanning authority.

3.14 A similarly comprehensive range ofplayers was seen in the non-code case

COORDINATEINPUTS

Ch 3

61

studies, including, for example, atGreenhithe which balanced thelandowner and main developer, theparcel developer, masterplanner, parceldesigner, landscape architects, engineers,a community representative, localresidents and new occupants, highwaysauthority and the planning authority, aswell as political representatives.

3.15 The non-code projects were typicallydeveloper-driven, usually in partnershipwith the local authority. Cambourne, forexample, was driven by a local authorityand development consortium, but reliedheavily in the early days on the input ofa high profile architect to give designdirection. His loss from the teamundermined sense of direction and thedesign vision. In Greenhithe and PortMarine, the developer drove forward thedesign guidance, advised in each caseby their masterplanners, whilst inNewcastle Great Park the lead role hasbeen shared between the city and thedeveloper, with the Head of Planningacting as project champion for the city,and the Project Manager fulfilling asimilar role on the developers side.

3.16 In a comparable set of processes to thecoded projects, the preparation ofdetailed design guidance was used to

garner stakeholder consensus from thestart. In Cambourne a Development andEnvironment group was established withrepresentatives from the consortium,district and county authorities, the parishand consultants. These fortnightlymeetings provided a forum to discussand agree the emerging guidance, andlater on to consider parcel proposalsbefore they went forward to developmentcontrol. In Greenhithe, weekly meetingsprior to the outline application andfortnightly afterwards with the localauthority and other stakeholders helpedto agree the content and establish acommon front. Port Marine used steeringgroups, client workshops and informalworkshops to build consensus, whilst atNewcastle Great Park, the absence offormal working arrangements at firstundermined communications which onlyimproved once a series of regularmeetings were put in place: monthly‘snagging’ meetings on implementation;monthly Advisory Committee meetingswith local councillors, officers, theEnvironment Agency and developerrepresentatives; twice monthly designreview meetings with the urban designconsultants; and weekly meetingsbetween the Head of Planning and theProject Manager.


62

COORDINATEINPUTS

Ch 3

63

DESIGN CODE REFERENCEWhat the codes contained: Roles andRelationshipsThe roles of various players were described more often and inmore detail in the pilot codes than in the advanced codes. Thepartnerships which delivered the various pilot codes weredescribed in the documents, and included representatives fromlocal authorities at all levels, civic societies, regional developmentagencies, landowners, developers, English Partnerships and/or theHousing Corporation, as well as CABE, and urban designconsultants who were typically charged with the preparation of thecodes.

The pilot codes always listed developers among their intendedaudience, and usually designers, indeed several codes mentionedthat these audiences were expected not only to conform to thecode requirements, but also to advance proposals which exceededthe minimum and set new standards. Six of the seven pilot codesalso explicitly addressed development control officers as a keyaudience, whilst only Rotherham mentioned the local community,as well as council members, council policy officers and “officersfrom other departments, agencies and organisations”.

Most mentioned the local authority’s responsibility for using thecode to assess development proposals (Swindon noted this couldbe undertaken by an outside consultant; at Aldershot thelandowner was also to use the code during developer selection).Rotherham set date targets for assessment, whilst Newcastlementioned that the council had “reviewed its pre-planning andformal planning processes to ensure this code is effectively used”

Fig 3.1 Newcastle Walker Riverside, approvals process flowcharthighlighting the role of the design code

(fig 3.1 Newcastle Walker Riverside), and that the local authority would prepare SPD whensite or design considerations went beyond the scope of the code. They also sought formalcommitment from the housing ALMO to comply with the code when improving council-owned properties. In addition, they noted “It will be the responsibility of all partners on theProject Board to communicate the significance of this code early on in their discussion withdevelopers and architects”.

3.17 The audience for most of the advancedcodes were parcel developers. Indeed atUpton it has been a requirement thatdeveloper teams attend a Design CodeWorkshop prior to selection to explainthe code (fig 3.2 Upton). Four codesspecifically targeted designers and onlyLightmoor targeted development controlplanners. At Newhall, where the codewas linked to a commissioned designideas competition, non-conformingdesigns were still encouraged, as long asreasons were given and the designswere of high quality; thus effectivelydesigners could test and adjust the codeprescriptions.

3.18 Roles of stakeholders were not alwaysspecified. Two codes stated that thelocal authority would be responsible forusing the code during developmentcontrol, and at Lightmoor, the joint-venture landowners were identified fortheir use of the code in the selection ofdevelopers. In terms of the developmentof the codes, the various leadership andpartnership arrangements were usuallyidentified.

3.19 The audience as specified in the ‘non-code’ guidance documents varied: localauthorities, developers, designers, and/orthe community. Newcastle Great Parkfurther suggested that local authoritystrategic planners would use theirguidance “as a prompt or checklist forthe preparation of strategy statements”.

Fig 3.2 Upton, approvals process flowchart


64

COORDINATEINPUTS

Ch 3

65

Skills and resources

Skills

SUMMARY

A wide range of generic, disciplinary andspecialist skills and knowledge-sets arerequired for coding – coding is no substitute for a lack of design skills.

Design codes are essentially urban design tools, and of greatest concern is the absence ofurban design skills from within local authorities, frequently tied to a lack of resources tofill the gap.

External consultants can play a valuable role in helping to fill the design skills gap, andin acting as project champions.

Where trust and commitment exists, landowners/master developers have sometimes beenable to plug the gap by funding an ongoing urban design input, for example by fundingdedicated staff in the local authority or an external consultant.

An optimum process seems to require appropriate coding skills/awareness in three keyplaces: in the landowner/master development team, in the local authority (planning andhighways), and in the design team(s).

Teams felt ill equipped to grapple with sustainability agendas, particularly where suchissues fall outside of the planning remit, sustainability is therefore typically dealt withthrough general policy aspirations rather than actual coding.

New players (individuals or stakeholders) need to be thoroughly appraised of previousdecisions and of the content of codes to ensure a continuity of interpretation andcommitment.

Other forms of design guidance require an identical set of skills and knowledgerequirements, in particular, design aware developers, and cost aware designers.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

3.20 The range of skills and knowledgeidentified as critical across the pilotstakeholders was remarkably consistent,and can broadly be categorised intothree groups:

Generic skills, including: leadership,vision, consensus building,collaborative working and co-ordination, negotiation and diplomacy,visualisation and presentation,communication and creativity.Disciplinary skill sets through whichmany generic skills will be delivered,derived from the involvement ofprofessional practitioners in: planning,urban design, highways, landscape,development, marketing, andcost/project management.Finally, specialist knowledge ofsustainability, consultation approachesand place-making were consideredindispensable.

3.21 If these were the aspirations, pilot teamswere realistic enough to recognisewhere skills gaps existed. Taking thethree groups in turn, the teams were lessconcerned about the absence of genericskills, although the lack of leadership,co-ordination, communication,consultation, and architecturalvisualisation skills were identified.

3.22 The perceived lack of key disciplinaryskills was more ubiquitous, with theabsence of urban design skills withinlocal authorities most frequentlyidentified as a shortcoming; althoughthere was an acceptance that consultantscould and were helping to fill the gap.Amongst other things, this skills deficitmade it difficult for local authoritypersonnel to gauge what resources wererequired for code production, and/or topromote the potential value of coding tointernal audiences in order to getbacking for the necessary resources. Theabsence of local market knowledge andmarketing skills was also a regularconcern, whilst the absence of landscapedesign expertise was a concern of twoteams, and project management andlegal skills of one team each. In thethird skills/knowledge category,knowledge and awareness ofsustainability and its relationship to thecoding process was the major concern.

3.23 The skills available to the different pilotprojects varied considerably, often tiedto the variation in resourcing. Oneimplication of the complexity of codingseems to be the vulnerability of projectsto changes in personnel. In Ashford, forexample, significant delays have beenencountered in the project as a result of

key staff moving on in the localauthority and both of the leaddevelopers at the same time. On thesame project, the architects werechanged in favour of architects who hada greater experience of designing withinthe context of design codes. A revisedmasterplan has now been produced thatis clearly ‘within the spirit’ of the code.In Cirencester, significant staff changesin both the District Council anddeveloper has altered the dynamic of thecoding exercise considerably.

3.24 The pilots showed without a doubt howimportant it is to have the rightskills/awareness in place, in threerespects: in the landowner/developmentteam, to raise aspirations and inspire aquality-led procurement process; in thelocal authority, to establish the localvision for quality and to enable andenforce its delivery; and in the designteam(s), as those charged with thedelivery of a creative and contextuallyappropriate code and related guidancematerials.

3.25 Most pilot projects had appropriate skillson at least two sides of this triangle.Only one seemed to have none, and asa result fared poorly throughout theprogramme. In particular the experience

confirms that codes are essentially urbandesign tools, and that the absenceof urban design skills, even amongst theconsultants employed, can greatlyundermine their production. InNewcastle, concern was expressed overthe bias towards highways concerns,particularly following the departure ofthe urban designer from the councilstaff. This left a significant skills deficitand led to calls amongst those involvedfor a ‘project champion’ or dedicatedteam to be established to drive theproject forward, and to prevent thedomination by narrow perspectives.

3.26 Rotherham did not have sufficient in-house skills to produce the codes, andtherefore used consultants for the designand commercial aspects of the code.Their experience showed that anefficient and effective coding processcan be delivered through working withappropriately skilled externalconsultants. An additional positivebenefit has been the authority’srealisation of the importance of in-housedesign skills, and at the time of the finalinterviews, a search for a suitablecandidate had begun.

3.27 Interviewees associated with theadvanced coding projects identified that


66

COORDINATEINPUTS

Ch 3

67

a wide range of skills were required forcoding. As well as the professionaldisciplinary skills and knowledge sets –planning, architecture, urban design,landscape architecture, engineering(highways and drainage), property andvaluation – generic and specialistskills/knowledge were identified asfollows. First, generic skills/knowledge:

Communication AnalyticalForesight – understanding long-termprojectsCollaborative workingInnovative thinking – outside the boxPolitical awarenessLeadershipNegotiationOpen minded approach.

Second, specialist skills/knowledge:

MasterplanningConstruction literacySocial awarenessMarket knowledge and practicesEcologyEnergy efficiency.

3.28 Although most teams felt they hadappropriate skills sets within theconsultant teams that they employed,

most recognised a skills gap – usuallydesign skills – on the local authorityside, frequently tied to a lack ofresources. Partly, as with Upton, thiswas related to the increased skill thatdesign codes demanded, because theyreduced the discretion available todevelopers, and therefore required morefrom those charged with their approvaland implementation. Unfortunately, atUpton, the imminent departure of theDC officer who has been dealing withthe code, and wider staffing issueswithin the authority gave officers seriouscause for concern about their capacityfor future involvement in the project.

3.29 A common solution to the lack of in-house design skills, was the reliance ofthe local authority on the skills of thelandowner’s urban design team,particularly for producing a code that metlocal needs and could be used duringdevelopment control; and to provide pre-application advice, to advise on reservedmatters submissions by parcel developers,and to negotiate with other statutoryauthorities (i.e. highways). Inevitablysuch cases raised the issue of whethercommunity needs were safeguarded bysuch a process. Elsewhere, the local

authority appointed their own externaldesign consultant to represent them. Inother cases, all parties employed theirown consultants to look after theirinterests, sometimes resulting in amultiplicity of consultant teams.

3.30 The non-coding projects identified analmost identical series of skills andknowledge requirements, including,above all, a wide range ofcomplementary design skills and anability to make balanced and informeddecisions between design, planning andeconomic constraints. In these cases,again, few thought the consultant anddevelopment teams lacked any keyskills, but skills gaps were identified onthe local authority side; in NewcastleGreat Park in specialist areas such assustainable drainage and commercialknowledge which made it difficult forthe city to argue their case in these keyareas, and in Port Marine, the lack ofsomeone to mediate between theplanning department and the highwaysauthority. Interviewees associated withGreenhithe summed up nicely two ofthe principal requirements agreed byall – design-aware developers, andcost-aware designers.


68

Skills and resources

Resources (and net economic value)

SUMMARY

Coding is time consuming, and therefore also a resource intensive process for all parties,although should be seen within a context of their use in association with majordevelopment proposals.

Stakeholders accept that the true costs only become apparent after the full planning process has been worked through.

Compliant schemes are likely to receive permissions without delay, whilst non-compliant schemes will be further held up – providinga ready incentive to deliver quality.

Many potential ‘sticking-points’ are being resolved during the coding processes that would otherwise need to be tackled duringdevelopment control or pre-application negotiations on reserved matters.

Coding requires the commitment of resources up-front, and partners frequently underestimate this and need to be more realistic about thesignificant resources that coding (or any form of detailed design guidance) will entail.

Coding has the benefit of encouraging local authorities into a more pro-active role.

Where codes are being implemented on site, schemes have been delivering enhanced sales values and increased land values. Thiscalculation to a large degree determines the value added by coding, at least in crude economic terms. The qualitative evidence suggeststhat the outcome is positive.

For commercial partners, and over the long-term, codes seem to be more than paying for themselves; by contrast, public sector partners worrythat the cost of their input is unsustainable.

The same costs and benefits are apparent for other forms of detailed design guidance, whilst overall the balance sheet is also positive.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

3.31 On the question of resources, conflictingviews were apparent. Most pilotstakeholders accepted that coding was aresource intensive exercise, and madevarying estimates of costs:

In one pilot the cost of the codingexercise was being met from withinexisting budgets but estimates weresignificant – 100 person days for localauthority staff, 100 for the developersand £25,000 for consultants costs.In a second, significant time costs wereanticipated on all sides, and there wasan initial consultant fee budget of£70,000. In fact the budget set aside forthe code doubled, reflecting extrawork required to revisit the masterplanbefore the code could be completed.Concern existed that given theresources required, the authority wouldnot be able to use coding again.In a further case study, 240 days ofdesigner time was projected, plusmajor inputs from highways, projectmanagement, and the PR consultants,although in fact the time spentconsiderably exceeded the initialallowance. In this case, the planningauthority initially suggested that oneplanning officer was required full time,but came to the view that a team of

different disciplines is required ratherthan an individual officer.The most expensive code revealedtime estimates approaching 350person days up to September 2004,£100,000 in consultants fees, andwas still not complete.

3.32 Of course given the size of the sites anddevelopment costs associated with theseschemes, the cost estimates might beviewed as relatively minor. Many pilotsfound it difficult to estimate theresources that would be required, butwere already aware that the process wastime consuming given the numbers ofmeetings, and were more concernedabout this than the code productioncosts. Sometimes there was frustrationthat time budgets were being needlesslyinflated because of the indecision of keyparties, but there was nevertheless anacceptance that the true costs would notbecome apparent until the codes hadbeen produced and used to see if anysavings were apparent during the codedelivery and management phases. Theplanning authority and highwaysauthority in Cirencester, for example,entered the pilot programme believingthe process would be cost neutral overthe long-term, because time savingsfurther down the line will compensate

for the initial investment. However,uncertainty surrounding the status oftheir code and whether it will or will notbe used during the development controlprocess has placed this initial assessmentin doubt.

3.33 In Rotherham, questions have beenraised about whether a detailedmasterplan might have been preferableto a code. A definitive answer is notpossible, but on the positive side, thecoding processes has led to the localauthority – by necessity – taking a moreproactive role in the code generationprocess than they would in amasterplan. This injection of localauthority resources may not besustainable across all such projects, but,along with the significant injection ofexternal design skills, has created adesire to enhance outcomes.

3.34 In Newcastle, despite resource andleadership difficulties, the experience hasrevealed the importance of partnershipworking, including internally betweenthe different teams of the local authority,and of making a realistic assessment ofthe financing, resources and capacityrequired to deliver such a project at theoutset. In this case, it is argued that thelack of direct involvement of a

COORDINATEINPUTS

Ch 3

69

development partner in the creation ofthe code has led to a lack of truepartnership, and to a code that – onedeveloper argues – does not reflect therealities of the market. To overcome theproblem and inject some momentum intothe process, a budget has been madeavailable in order to buy in the capacityto speed up delivery of the code.

3.35 Interviewees on behalf of the advancedcase studies all agreed that significantresources were required to deliverdesign codes, but this amount ofresource provision is not unexpected orunusual within the context of majordevelopment proposals. Estimates variedwidely and were not always compatible,but by way of illustration:

In one case the developers paid theconsultants fees for the codeproduction and the costs for the localauthority were absorbed into its corebudget. The associated six monthcode preparation time was brokendown as follows: 270 days fordesigner, 150 for developer, 20 forlandowner, and 30 for local authority.

In a second, the designers spent oneyear designing and testing the code(200-300 person days), whilst thelandowner/promoter spent 250 dayson the project, a third of which wason the code.In a third, the local authority spent120-140 days on the code preparation,including 50 days of highways input,whilst the subsequent review of thecode was particularly time consuming.

3.36 In this last case, the developer wassceptical that he would make back theextra costs, including the consultantsfees and time consuming projectmanagement. For their part EnglishPartnerships, which have a full timesite manager on the job to ensurecompliance, have had to absorb adecrease in land value, but argue thismay be linked to a general marketdownturn. This, however, seemed anexception, with other case studiesreporting increased returns oninvestment. In Newhall, despite the localauthority arguing that if the use of codesbecome more widespread they wouldhave to employ their own in-houseexpertise (with significant resourceimplications), the landowner believedthat the codes will eventually pay for

themselves through enhanced landvalues.

3.37 At Fairfield Park, the lack of resources inthe local authority planning departmenthad limited their input, something theybelieved undermined the end result.There, although the process has beenresource intensive and stakeholdersbelieve it is unlikely that it could berepeated everywhere, the quality that isbeing delivered is already producinguplifts in sales values. In Greenwich, anadditional benefit was noted. Becausethe code had to be acceptable to thedevelopment consortium, resource issueswere raised and resolved early in theprocess. According to the developer, aside effect for the landowner at WestSilvertown was a better return on thesale of land because the developer isspending less on reserved mattersapplications, and consequently can bidmore for the site.

3.38 The non-code studies also revealedresource intensive processes, confirmingthat other forms of detailed designguidance also require a significant up-front investment:

In Cambourne the masterplaninvolved two people from the urbandesign consultant full time for six


70

months, with 30 person days requiredsubsequently for each briefing plan.The job has employed 1.5 people fulltime, although the additionalresources were seen as a positivecontribution to the creation of aunique high quality development.Greenhithe required 270 days fromthe developer up to the outlineconsent, and from the designers, 100days preparing the developmentframework and 45 days on thecharacter area study, with 30 daysfrom the landscape designers. Thedevelopers argued that the higherdesign specification has increasedcosts – both in design fees and in theconstruction cost – but has increasedcost certainty across the project anddelivered higher returns on theirinvestment. On the downside it hasrequired higher than averageborrowing and therefore increasedrisk.The urban design consultants workedfor 200 days on the Port Marinemasterplan, with significant additionalresources required from the developer(1 person full time) and planningauthority (2 days per week) over theperiod. The developer argues thatincreased design and development

certainty has nevertheless ultimatelyled to cost savings on the project.In Newcastle, the City has spent atleast £100,000 each year on the GreatPark project (although not just on thepreparation of design guidance), andnegotiations are in hand for adedicated officer funded by Section106 funds. Here the designersemployed six architects for six monthsto prepare the guidance for theremaining cells.

3.39 The non-code projects largely echoedthe coding projects, suggesting that thepreparation of detailed design guidanceis both time and cost intensive, butwidespread benefits and, in most cases,increased investment returns are morethan covering the costs. This calculationto a large degree determines the valueadded by coding, at least in crudeeconomic terms. The qualitativeevidence suggests that the outcome ispositive.

COORDINATEINPUTS

Ch 3

71


72

73

4 Understanding contextA second dimension of the inception of a coding process will include the understanding of critical contextualfactors that will guide the preparation of the code. This will include any pre-existing policy and guidance that willneed to be reflected in the code’s aspirations, and the developing (or developed) physical vision for the site asencompassed in the masterplan, regulating plan or design framework.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

Policy and guidanceSUMMARY

Careful attention is required by codedesigners to existing policy and guidanceframeworks to avoid abortive work.

Development plan policies provide important means to require that codes be prepared.

Codes are frequently prepared to satisfy a condition to an outline planning consent thatdetailed (often unspecified) design guidance be prepared.

Reference to government guidance and to analytical, consultative and otherpolicy/guidance work can help to legitimise codes.

The hierarchy of policy and guidance needs clarifying from place to place to establishwhere and when codes take precedence.

Codes provide the most prescriptive level of the design guidance hierarchy, but typicallybuild upon principles already established elsewhere.

The preparation of new detailed design guidance of all types provides a readyopportunity to work with highways authorities to question and supersede outdatedhighways standards.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

4.1 A broad range of both site-specific andgeneric policy and guidance provided abasis for the design codes. Mostcommon were the range of masterplans,development frameworks and detaileddevelopment briefs that established thebroad spatial vision for the pilotdevelopments (see below). TheAldershot and Hastings codes, forexample, have developed out of the site-specific frameworks that resulted fromtheir respective community engagementexercises. In the case of Aldershot, thistakes the form of the Aldershot UrbanExtension supplementary guidance thathas been subject to public consultation,separate formal consultation, and whichin its amended form has been adoptedas Interim Policy Guidance (IPG). TheIPG sets the broad principles that informthe code. In Swindon, a masterplan wasin place prior to coding beginning insupport of the outline planningapplication. Ashford has taken a ‘beltand braces’ approach, with a masterplanand detailed development brieffollowing a Local Vernacular Study. Inthis case the code will be a subsidiarydocument to the brief, adding furtherdetail, but also overlapping with it.


74

4.2 Policy frameworks established at thelocal authority-wide scale indevelopment plans have provedinfluential. In Cirencester thedevelopment plan status and allocationhas proved particularly influential. Itrequires that a masterplan be preparedjointly by the developers of the KingshillSouth and Kingshill North sites, and thatthis should be formally adopted assupplementary guidance. As aconsequence an early attempt to adoptthe Kingshill South design code wasknocked back by the local authority onthe basis that it had been prepared inthe absence of the site being formallyallocated, of a joint masterplan, andwithout significant public consultation.Consultation on a masterplan wasscheduled for late 2005 and was seen asan opportunity to define a new designagenda for the town.

4.3 Highways policy and standards havealso proved decisive influences on codepreparation, sometimes negativelyaccording to pilot stakeholders. The EastSussex Highway Standards have set thehighways approach in Hastings, layingdown detailed design standards, forinstance on sightlines, althoughhighways officers are willing to beflexible and to consider the merits of

each application that comes forward.Nevertheless, all the materials includedin the code have been agreed and arealready in use elsewhere in theauthority’s boundaries, so those involveddo not anticipate any problems. InSwindon, the codes follow the principlesof the borough council’s TransportRequirements for Development althoughthey do not follow the highwaysstandards, but instead reinterpret them.Elsewhere, in Newcastle, highwaysstandards are so out of date (dating from1988), that they have proved lessinfluential in the code design process.

4.4 Finally, a range of non-statutory guidesand standards are impacting on codedesign, for example, the existing rangeof generic policy/guidance frameworksin Rotherham, including the TownMasterplan, Town Centre Charter,Waterfront Strategy, and existingresidential SPG. In Hastings, theMillennium Community Standards aredefining a baseline for environmentalperformance, whilst in Ashford, thecomprehensive Kent Design Guide issetting a baseline for design andhighways quality. In Cirencester theopposite was true. There, concern wasinitially expressed by the local planningauthority that the draft code for Kingshill

South failed to reflect long heldaspirations articulated in the councils’own district-wide design guide – the‘Cotswold Design Code’, and insteadreflected agendas that were alien andsometimes incompatible with theCotswold context.

4.5 A common response to the welter ofpolicy and guidance was a request thatthe hierarchy needs to be made veryclear. For example, when do existinghighways standards take precedence,and when does the new guidancecontained in the code?

4.6 A number of the advanced codes pre-dated the recent changes in nationalplanning policy on design, and mighteven be credited with informing thegradual evolution of policy since themid 1990s (Hulme and West Silvertown,for example). Like the pilots, most of theadvanced codes had been establishedwithin a broader local policy/guidanceframework, incorporating the range ofsite-specific development briefs, designframeworks and masterplans alreadydiscussed. Occasionally these were morestrategic in nature including, in the caseof West Silvertown, the Royal DocksDevelopment Strategy which sets out theregeneration strategy for the Royal

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

Ch 4

75

Docks. This, in turn, set the context fora series of detailed Area FrameworkPlans which formed part of the tenderbrief for the site and which wasincorporated into the codes. For its part,Greenwich was inspired by the nationalMillennium Community initiative andassociated standards, but stakeholdersargue that as a private documentdesigned to regulate the developmentagreement between landowner anddeveloper, the code itself was notactually inspired or related to anyplanning policy framework.

4.7 In some cases, the process of producingthe code had actually resulted in localpolicies being superseded. In Upton, forexample, the existing highwaysstandards were out of date, and havebeen superseded by the code. Highwaysofficers are fully signed up to the newstandards and regularly apply thegeneric principles to other sites.Elsewhere, more up to date designguidance and standards were already inplace. Newhall, for example includeselements from the Essex Design Guidefor Residential and Mixed Use Areas,which was adopted by the localauthority as SPG.

4.8 The non-code examples showed asimilar range of policy and guidancecontexts, some of which were morehelpful than others. Greenhithe hastaken on board the range of national,regional and local design policies, buthas rejected the Kent highway standardsin favour of a bespoke highways designguide for the scheme. The Newcastlehighways authority also has its ownhighways standards, but used nationalguidelines, for example on Homezones,to bring their practice up to date for theGreat Park project. By contrast, themasterplan at Port Marine was catalysedby the Portishead Quay DevelopmentFramework, which, as local SPG hadestablished the framework forregeneration in the wider area, whilstthe masterplan and design guide atCambourne are now the ‘parent’documents for a whole set of guidancedocuments of their own. Some of thesehave been adopted as SPG, includingguides on shop fronts and play spaces,and all are specific to Cambourne.


76

DESIGN CODE REFERENCEWhat the codes contained:Policy and GuidanceOnly one of the pilot codes expressed a clear hierarchy of policy and guidance, with thecode acting as “a transitional document to bridge between the Development Frameworkwhich supports the outline planning application and future detailed design stages leadingto reserved matters planning applications”. Four of the pilot codes were heavily guided byexisting development plan policies, whilst another used The Urban Design Compendiumas the basis for structuring its code, stating also that the code “sits alongside thedevelopment brief as a framework for all future development proposals”. One pilotreferred to regional policy, whilst Cirencester referred to the Cotswold Design Codeprepared by the District Council in 2000, which “set(s) down aspirations for quality,sustainable urban development, and which provides significant direction on urban designmatters”.

One of the pilots advises generally that “developers and their designers should ... refer tocurrent national guidance for best practice urban design principles”, whilst others explicitlymentioned PPG1 and PPG3 (both frequently, and in some cases citing particular objectives),as well as PPG3 companion guidance, PPG6, PPG13 and PPG17. Two pilot codes explicitlyrefer to highways standards: the Highways Act 1980 and the companion guide to DesignBulletin 32 for Residential Roads and Footpaths. Other general guidance mentionedincluded The Urban Design Compendium (four times), Towards an Urban Renaissance andBy Design (twice each), CABE’s Design Review series, Better Places to Live and SaferPlaces. These were primarily used to provide clear objectives for coding. Pilot cases alsomentioned building regulations, British Standards (for tree planting), Millennium Communitystandards, and Acts of Parliament, including the Disability Discrimination Act and Refuseand Amenity Act. Swindon made no reference to other policies, appealing instead to“characteristics that are constant and timeless” (fig 4.1 Swindon).

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

Ch 4

77

Fig 4.1 Swindon, the relation between a design code and architecture

Among the advanced case studies, three made no reference to other policy. The other five all followed a development plan, and in four casesalso a detailed development brief. In two cases there was also preceding design guidance and in one of these a preceding master plan; twoof the other cases incorporated a master plan within the coding document itself. For the most part these references form an explicit hierarchy,defining the context and/or parameters for the code documents.

Newhall’s Planning and Design Information drew upon policies in the Essex Structure Plan, and the project team also consulted directly withthe planning officers who developed the Essex Design Guide who “provided support” for the development of the Newhall code. Citationsof national policy included PPG3 and its companion guidance, PPG13 (twice each), as well as more general guidance such as the SustainableCommunities Plan, Towards an Urban Renaissance and The Urban Design Compendium. Advanced case studies also mentioned HousingCorporation standards and Lifetime Home Standards. Nationally-applicable references are often compiled in an appendix rather than linkedto specific elements of the coding, suggesting they are either part of the background knowledge of those who prepare codes, or a sheaf ofbackground regulations intended to cover any potential gaps in coding (the same applied to the pilot codes). Upton clarified that developersshould also have regard to separate parking standards which form part of the developer’s package. The observation highlights that codingfrequently operates in parallel with other design and highways standards.

Two of the four non-code studies were urban design frameworks which further developed policies from a local plan; one of these also drewupon a wider previous consultation document and the other followed from outline planning applications. The other two cases followed onfrom a site-specific planning brief and master plan. Two of the four cases mentioned national policy: including PPG1, PPG13, and regionalguidance for the Thames Gateway. Other policies mentioned by non-code cases covered areas as diverse as biodiversity, forestry, standardsfor playing fields, and building regulations.


78

Site and visionSUMMARY

Codes are not seen as vision-makingdocuments, but as delivery mechanisms tohelp deliver the vision expressedelsewhere, ideally on the firm foundationof a strong and technically and financially robust physical vision.

Typically masterplans or development frameworks establish the broader physical/place-based vision, whilst codes interpret and articulate the vision, shaping it and developing itin the process.

Used in isolation, the potential of codes is limited to generic design guidance.

Typically masterplans, frameworks and regulating plans serve the important role ofdefining the street hierarchy and identifying separate neighbourhoods in terms of theirdensities, patterns of land use and open space, and building type. These aresubsequently coded with different block forms, building envelopes, street treatments andarchitectural and landscape characters.

Codes vary considerably along a continuum from those that significantly develop the coreprinciples of a largely conceptual physical vision, to those that primarily articulate (in atechnical sense) the principles already established in a detailed masterplan or other vision.

Masterplans are rarely static documents, but are subject to change throughout the codingprocess, a process which can help to deliver a more detailed and considered masterplan.

The non-code case studies often followed a similar division between vision and deliverybut by other means; in these, the need to further articulate key design principles throughother detailed and technical documents was also deemed necessary.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

Ch 4

79

4.9 The codes were not viewed as the keyvision-making documents, but instead asdelivery mechanisms to deliver a visionfor the site already establishedelsewhere; typically in the masterplan ordevelopment framework. In Aldershot,for example, the masterplan (in fact adevelopment framework) establishes thebroad vision and aspirations for the site,whilst the code is seen as a moretechnical ‘handbook’ for designers,helping to refine the vision byestablishing key character area principlesand relating proposals to the landscapeand topography. A Design Statement forthe Development Framework wassubmitted in June 2005, and thisarticulates the vision for the purpose ofobtaining permissions.

4.10 In Newcastle, the masterplan lays outthe structural framework for change, butthe real 3D vision is still to emergereflecting significant differences over theextent of demolition on the site, andresulting housing units that can becatered for. In Rotherham, the site formspart of the wider vision for the towncentre contained in the draft townMasterplan which aims to improvedesign quality and the appeal of acompact town centre. It was hoped thatthe code would articulate this physically

and in a deliverable manner. In fact, thebroad strategic nature of this documentmeant that a separate masterplan neededto be prepared for the site as part of thecoding work, something which tookmore time than originally envisaged. Atthe heart of the new code a regulatingplan now articulates this vision, withdetail on frontages, building lines, publicrealm treatments, landmarks andbuilding heights. The plan fleshes outthe masterplan vision and links to thedetailed codes elsewhere in thedocument. The experience illustrates theneed for coding to be based on the firmfoundation of a strong, technically andfinancially robust physical vision.

4.11 In Cirencester, the initial code, preparedin the absence of a masterplan lacked acoherent vision, something that has beenrectified in subsequent iterations. Themasterplan now envisages a villageswallowed by the expanding town, with‘village elements’ such as a marketsquare and churchyard taken from astudy of surrounding villages. The strongvision now delivers on the localauthority’s aspirations for the area, butthe code itself has been left in a limbo,overtaken by events as the masterplanhas been produced. The experiencedemonstrates the difficulty of moving

beyond generic design principles todeliver a strong vision through a codealone. In Hastings, although nomasterplan exists for the coded area, adevelopment framework and subsequentregulating plan in the code provide thetwo dimensional vision on which thecode builds. The latter sets out thearrangement of streets and blocks,showing each character area andreferencing streets and blocks by type.

4.12 The pilots demonstrated that masterplansare rarely static documents, but werealso subject to change throughout thecoding process. In Aldershot thesechanges were in the main strategic innature, in Swindon they related to thechanging policy context around thescheme (i.e. evolving educationalrequirements), whilst in Ashford theyrepresented an evolution of the vision assuccessive parcels came forward fordetailed design.

4.13 Again, the pilots reflected practice in theadvanced case studies, this time in so faras codes were in the main viewed asopportunities to establish and prescribedesign principles, but not necessarilyhow those should come together into agreater whole or vision for the site.Typically the masterplans and

frameworks associated with the codesestablished the broader physical/place-based vision, whilst the codes interpretedand articulated the vision, shaping it anddeveloping it in the process.

4.14 The vision for West Silvertown, forexample, emerged out of the LDDCdevelopment framework for the RoyalDocks, and from the idea for an urbanvillage in Docklands. In fact themasterplan and code were developedconcurrently, so each was able to informthe other and contribute to realising thegreater three-dimensional whole. Asimilar process at Fairfield Park led tothe masterplan and code beingdeveloped as one process, with differentaspects of the vision articulated in each.Thus whilst the masterplan was explicitabout the type of layout that was beingproposed and about the urban designprinciples and relationship to the listedbuilding, other aspects of the vision,such as the promotion of a Victoriancharacter in the architecture, were notexplicit, and were coded into thescheme.

4.15 In the case of Lightmoor, the code and‘illustrative’ masterplan are contained inthe same design guidance document,with the code fleshing out the physical


80

vision articulated through the masterplanfor a Shropshire village with aShropshire village vernacular. FairfordLeys showed a similar relationshipbetween code and masterplan, with thevision for an English township evolvingout of the original concept plans andsubsequent masterplan.

4.16 At Upton, the physical vision wasestablished through the Enquiry byDesign process. More recently themasterplan has been updated, and thecode has been reviewed in response tothe changes in an attempt to make it amore effective delivery tool. Newhall hasalso seen a gradual development of thecode, or at least how it is presented andused. Currently the codes are used toinform developers of the aspirations ofthe landowner and masterplanning team,and the requirements placed upon themto translate that vision into reality.However, the requirements contained inthe coding document have had to beinterpreted in a more prescriptive wayfor each parcel as a means to get closerto delivering the masterplanning vision.

4.17 Hulme was perhaps the leastprescriptive of the codes, and the codewhich least represents a delivery tool,

and most represents a set of strategicaspirations or vision, in this case for atraditional urban neighbourhood basedon perimeter blocks and a hierarchy ofpublic and private spaces. Theillustrative masterplan which was neverformally adopted or publishedestablishes the two dimensionalparameters across which the detailedcodes and technical requirements apply.By contrast, the codes at Greenwich aremost clearly technical documents, in thiscase to assess compliance with the realvision contained within the competitionwinning masterplan. Thus the keyaspirations for the code directly reflectthose of the masterplan, whilst thevision in the masterplan has evolved indetail – if not in substance – as a resultof the requirements of successive phasesof the project.

4.18 The non-code case studies oftenfollowed a similar division between sitevision and delivery but by other means.The vision for Cambourne had beenestablished during the masterplanningprocess as a settlement with threedistinct villages and a centre in atraditional South Cambridgeshirecharacter. There the masterplan had long

established the vision, whilst phasingbriefs represent the delivery documents,articulating detail and updating theoverall vision. In Greenhithe, themasterplan articulates the physical formof the development with its idea ofcharacter areas, whilst the character areamatrix fleshes this out and adds a layerof detail in the same manner as a code.

4.19 In the case of Port Marine, the localauthority’s SPG (incorporating the urbandesign study) for the site established theoverall vision based on visits to othersimilar schemes and the identification ofgood and bad practice, whilst successivelayers of detail were added, first throughthe detailed masterplan and second witheach reserved matters application (18 intotal). For its part, the overlapping layersof guidance at Newcastle have graduallydeveloped the vision. Thus the originallocal authority masterplan wasinsufficiently defined and open tointerpretation, leading in time to therevised masterplan, featuring a strongersense of place. This has been developedin the City’s own design guidance forthe site, and is being interpreted anddelivered through the subsequentDesign Strategy Statements for each cell.

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

Ch 4

81

DESIGN CODE REFERENCEWhat the codes contained: Site and VisionAll seven pilot codes were clearly site-specific, and all either included a masterplan orregulating plan near the start (Hastings and Swindon) or referred to a masterplan, regulatingplan or urban design framework which had already been developed and approved. InCirencester (with the exception of early drafts) the code document had included a masterplan(in numerous thematic layers) as a separate chapter. Both elements were later combined, andwhat was thereafter referred to as a ‘concept plan’ effectively provided a set of regulatingplans for the various coding themes. For some themes, the concept plan was the entirety ofthe vision, as no standards or alternative solutions followed. Hastings’s code similarly used a‘regulating plan’ which showed the layout and hierarchy of streets and the layout of blocksand character areas (fig 4.2 Hastings). Newcastle used a preceding masterplan in the sameway, though not explicitly named.

The masterplans, frameworks and regulating plans serve the important role of defining thestreet hierarchy and identifying separate neighbourhoods in terms of their densities, patternsof land use and open space, and building type. These are subsequently coded with differentblock forms, building envelopes, street treatments and architectural and landscape characters(these being the main substantive targets for coding) (fig 4.3 Aldershot). Design coding was inall cases treated as a later, more detailed phase of a longer process of managing newdevelopment, developing the site vision further by setting out detailed design parameters andestablishing standards. Hastings had an early chapter providing a list of vision statements aswell as broad urban design objectives organised thematically, some of which were thenpicked up in specific code sections. As with the advanced codes, pilots mentioned theiterative development between masterplan and code. Rotherham noted that its masterplanvision had gone through two drafts and that “The Design Code process has resulted in a more detailed masterplan”.

Among the eight advanced codes examined, only one – Hume – made no reference to a masterplan, because it provided general designguidance. As such, it established the vision for urban design. Four advanced cases included a masterplan or framework plan near thebeginning of the document. The developer’s masterplan for Lightmoor was only ‘illustrative’ (fig 4.4 Lightmoor), for example in terms of the

Fig 4.2 Hastings, regulating plan


82

parcel layout and street hierarchy (figs 4.5 & 4.6 Lightmoor). The vision statement includedimages of a detailed massing model which conformed to this illustrative masterplan (fig 4.4Lightmoor), whilst the aspirational ‘layout principles’ in their code were mandatory.Newhall’s masterplan was also ‘indicative’, and the document suggested that the designvision, which is expressed in more detail in the code, can actually feed back to a reshapingof the masterplan, and also that non-conforming submitted designs which nevertheless servethe underlying design principles can also feed back to change the code. The process aimsfor optimal expression of the initial principles.

The other three cases referred to a masterplan which preceded development of the code.In some cases this masterplan was already approved at the time of preparing the code, inothers it was in draft form and both the code and masterplan had to go through a paralleltandem process of revision. In all cases, the design code and masterplan worked together;whilst the code invariably articulated detailed rules for delivering the overall vision shown inthe masterplan, it also developed the vision further, by setting standards which establish thecharacter of various types of buildings, streets, blocks, parcels and open spaces.

The four ‘non-code’ documents varied considerably in their relation to a masterplan and anoverall vision for development. Two were urban design frameworks; both established a verygeneral vision of design outcomes. One of these included a masterplan; whilst the other wasdue to be complemented by detailed masterplans for various parts of the framework area. Theother two were design guides, one of which referred directly to a separate masterplan withoutmaking the relation between the two documents explicit. The second (Newcastle Great Park)follows from a planning brief and masterplan, however, it failed to convincingly establish anyvision of desired design outcomes: it had no illustrations, and its few statements on urbanform and design remained at the level of abstract principles, without specifying standards oralternative solutions. The stated intention here was “to allow flexibility within the designprocess by the use of qualitative criteria in contrast to the application of prescriptivestandards” – contrary to a design coding approach.

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

Ch 4

83

Fig 4.3 Aldershot, regulating plan

Fig 4.4 Lightmoor, illustrative masterplan

Fig 4.5 Lightmoor, illustrative street hierarchy,including parking courts

Fig 4.6 Lightmoor, illustrative parcel layout


84

85

5 Code designA second dimension of the inception of a coding process will include the understanding of critical contextualfactors that will guide the preparation of the code. This will include any pre-existing policy and guidance that willneed to be reflected in the code’s aspirations, and the developing (or developed) physical vision for the site asencompassed in the masterplan, regulating plan or design framework.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

Content and expression

Content (design aspirations)

SUMMARY

Codes (and other forms of detailed design guidance) reflect a comparable set of aspirations,mainly ‘traditional’ urban design with perimeter block urban forms, better integration withsurroundings, and a high quality public realm.

Streets are typically coded as a series of generic hierarchical types with different profiles and standards.

Codes for built form and townscape concerns are often extensive, serving aesthetic, urbanistic and functional purposes, including thepursuit of natural surveillance.

Open space issues, by contrast, are usually coded on the basis of specific spaces clearly identified in the masterplan.

Issues of land use and unit mix are rarely coded at all, and instead the adaptability of buildings to different uses is prioritised, alongsideattempts to influence unit sizes and types.

Parking courts are favoured as the dominant means of taming the impact of parked cars on the street scene.

Coding for specific public realm products seems to be problematic if EU procurement practices are to be observed, requiring genericprescriptions or performance standards, rather than product specifications.

Character areas are typically defined by urban design controls rather than on the basis of architectural styles.

Coding for sustainability seemed problematic, with codes often being high on aspiration, but low on actual codes that address these issuesin a deliverable manner.

Coding for architectural design is both possible and popular; typically based on an analysis of local context such matters are often advisorybut are sometimes mandatory and range from historic/traditional to contemporary styles.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE


86

5.1 Aspirations to be reflected in the contentof the codes varied, although a numberof common themes were apparent. Akey recurring aspiration was to respondto context and avoid creating ‘yetanother bland suburb’ by delivering adistinctive sense of place. A relatedaspiration was the widespread desire forcodes to tackle the integration of theirdevelopments with the immediatesurroundings through: integration withany historic fabric, integration withexisting built form, integration betweenparcels, and the creation of goodlinkages through and beyond sites.

5.2 A range of urban design aspirationswere apparent amongst thoseinterviewed, including the desire tocreate coherent, permeable, accessibleneighbourhoods with good connections;to deal with what was seen in one pilotas ‘councillors pre-occupation withparking’; to establish consistency withenough variety (i.e. through characterareas such as the four areas used inRotherham, each separately expressed inthe code); to deliver sustainability,including through biodiversity andgreening and reduced parking; toestablish safe, pleasant, convenientplaces to live; and to prioritise the

design of the public realm and itsaftercare.

5.3 There was also a strong desire in mostpilots to provide a quality threshold andprecedent for future developments. Aparticular problem, however, has beenthe specification of street furniture andflooring surfaces. In this regard, despitethe frequent desire of code writers tospecify particular products, this was feltto contravene EU procurement practices.Generic prescriptions or designperformance standards were viewed asan alternative.

5.4 Some debate was apparent over theextent to which codes should code forarchitectural design concerns. In most,e.g. Swindon, significant architecturalprescription was considered a valuablepart of the code. In Aldershot, bycontrast, the landowner was emphaticthat the code should only address thepublic realm and allow developerscomplete flexibility on building design,whilst the borough council wish to see acode that sets out principles for buildingheight, massing, details and materials.The result is that the local planningauthority feels their aspirations are notbeing given sufficient attention and thehighways authority have been largely

left out of the process. In particular theauthority complain that the codeimposes a character on the site ratherthan seeking to work with the site’sexisting mature character and landscape.

5.5 Those involved with the advanced codesreflected a comparable set of aspirationsthat they wished to see reflected in thecontent of their codes; namely‘traditional’ urban design with perimeterblock forms, but varying in theirapproach to architectural design. Thusthe code at West Silvertown reflected abelief that it should be style-neutral, butmore explicit in terms of matters of thepublic realm. Other codes reflected astrong architectural vision (i.e. FairfieldPark), or found ways of addressing localdistinctiveness, without addressingarchitecture per se. Newhall’s palette ofmaterials and colours, for example, isbased on analysis of local soils andminerals, but does not suggest how theyshould be used. In Fairford Leys theseroles were split into two codes, onedealing with public realm and landscapecriteria for key spaces, and the secondwith the built form – building lines,frontage enclosure, height, street, mewscharacter, parking arrangements,architectural details and materials.

87

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Common issues reflected in the codesincluded:

Response to contextSocial mixMixed usesCharacter areasHierarchy of spaceHigh quality public realmSustainable urban formsConnectivityEnvironmental benchmarksTownscape variety.

5.6 Questions of marketability weresometimes raised by developers withregard to certain requirements of thecodes. In the case of Upton, forexample, the car parking ratio of 1:1was considered difficult to market in thecontext of large family homes.Developers argued that it would lead inthe long-term to eventual problems ofexcessive on street parking, and in theshort-term to depressed land values.Of course standards of this nature –marketable or otherwise – are notlimited to coded projects.

5.7 The non-code case studies illustratedsimilar aspirations and again differingapproaches to architectural prescription.At Greenhithe, the Character Area Matrixdefines each character area according tosix elements – building heights andscale, amenity space, public realm,parking standards, boundary treatments,and materials, whilst in Cambourne theaspirations are to create a high qualitypublic realm and landscaping, with amix of uses, and increasingly (at leastin the consortium’s view) to raise thedensities of the development in line withPlanning Policy Guidance 3: Housing.At Port Marine, the aspiration is toregenerate a contaminated brownfieldsite into a vibrant dockside environment,whilst in Newcastle Great Park, a keyobjective has simply been to avoidmaking the mistakes of the past (over-engineered streets and spaces), andinstead to create a high quality anddistinct development on what is anextensive greenfield site.


88

89

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

DESIGN CODE REFERENCEWhat the codes contained: Content (design aspirations)The content of the codes varied considerably, although all included at least some standardscovering streets, parking, open space, building envelopes and architectural design. Amongthe pilots, Hastings, Ashford and Swindon all provided very comprehensive and prescriptivecoverage.

Upton (fig 5.1 Upton) was the most detailedadvanced code, with Fairfield Park also quitethorough on urban layout and architecturebecause of its sensitive historic context. WestSilvertown lacked detail in its code, reflectingthe fact that a detailed masterplan had alreadybeen prepared. Hulme was stronger onprinciples and targets than on specificstandards and design solutions.

The ‘non-code’ documents were,unsurprisingly, least comprehensive in thescope. With the exception of Cambourne,they included few or no controls on buildingdesign, and although all cases exhibitedaspirations for townscape (emphasisingcorners, providing visual interest, landmark

buildings), their approach to the regulation of built form was otherwise generally limited toconventional planning parameters such as height, density and ensuring casual surveillance.

The content of the codes can be broken down in terms of aspirations against eightcategories: sustainability, streets and enclosure, parking, open space and landscape, land usemix, neighbourhood character, built form and townscape, and architectural design.

SUSTAINABILITY:

There was extensive reference tosustainability criteria in the pilot codes,although these were not expressedthrough the kinds of specific formalprescriptions that are typical of designcodes, and generally failed to add up toa coherent sustainable vision. Two pilotslimited their coding to the setting ofBREEAM standards. Aldershot, inaddition, listed a wide range of otherprinciples, but did not clearly code forthem. It required planting local species,as did Cirencester for at least 60% oflandscaping, as well as low-water-demand planting for 40%. Swindonaspired to a sustainable urban drainage(SUDS) design strategy, although it wasyet to be prepared, and required on-sitecycle storage, although without aspecific measure.

On the question of passive solar gain,Cirencester argued, “The Design Codedoes not warrant the size and locationof windows and gardens to maximisethe use of the sun because individualsoften wish to make trade-offs in orderto achieve other sustainabilityoutcomes, such as the need to avoid

Fig 5.1 Upton, the scope of the code


90

overlooking or increase their sense of personal security. For this reason it will be up to the developer to determine how they address passivesolar gain against other influences. However, making the most of the sun should be seen as a core principle and significant considerationshould be given to how a building’s design meets this objective”. In several codes, affordable housing was to be scattered throughout the site.This aspiration generally resulted from prior development agreements, and was achieved by a masterplan rather than through codeinstructions; as was provision for public transport, storm water retention and mixing uses.

Hastings, like Greenwich, had strong aspirations, with somewhat clearer connections to design solutions (e.g. ‘green roofs’, providing outdoordrying space to minimise the use of clothes dryers, landscape buffering between roads and parklands, reducing surface runoff by coding ofmaterials and planting), but again, clear standards and design prescriptions were lacking. In general, sustainability hopes were high, butdelivery seemed problematic.

Two of the advanced codes made no mention at all of sustainability; two others limited their aspirations to BREEAM standards. Upton,Lightmoor and Fairfield Park provided very long lists of detailed targets and some advisory solutions (e.g. to face main living rooms south‘when appropriate’), but, as with the pilots, these were primarily statements of planning aspirations, rather than requirements. The finalsentence of Fairfield Park’s sustainability section passed the onus to designers: “To assist with the monitoring of sustainable measures includedin the design of dwellings, schedules will be required to demonstrate how these have been accommodated”. Coding of architectural designwas deliberately limited to allow this to be delivered.

Upton required the use of porous paving and the connection of domestic rainwater systems to SUDS (figs 5.2 & 5.3 Upton). It also made thenovel suggestion of using some parts of the development to showcase demonstration projects that trial green technologies, although there wasno requirement for this. Lightmoor noted that detailed guidance for rainwater harvesting would be provided in individual briefs, so no genericcoding was included. Greenwich, with its intention to be a showcase for brownfield redevelopment, put sustainability at the forefront of itsaspirations. However, even here, it was largely through the masterplanning and detailed parcel design processes that sustainability was to bedelivered. The Greenwich design code does not itself show how to design sustainable urban forms.

The four non-coded cases showed reasonably strong aspirations for sustainability, although if they delivered, it was primarily through themasterplan rather than the identification of desired design solutions in detailed design guidance. Passive solar gain, frequently mentioned, wasnever actually prescribed. Cambourne’s guidance advised keeping office floor plans small (12m-15m) to optimise natural daylighting,increasing thermal mass, and ensuring ‘full accessibility’ for wheelchairs. Newcastle Great Park focused on ecological objectives (with fewexplicit connections made to urban design) and also aspired to “variety in building types, sizes and tenures to encourage social and incomegroup mix”.

91

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.3 Upton, sustainable Urban Drainage System(SUDS) layout

Fig 5.2 Upton, sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) design


92

DESIGN CODE REFERENCE contd.What the codes contained: Content (design aspirations)

STREETS AND ENCLOSURES:

Across the case studies, street hierarchy and layout was almost invariably defined by themasterplan (fig 5.4 Ashford). The pilot studies all offered very comprehensive controls onstreets, although three merely reproduced the pertinent highways design guidance. Of theremainder, Hastings’s very thorough code provided the most cogent compilation of the streetregulations which have a clear impact on the quality of the public realm (as opposed to trafficflow), including, like Hulme, required provision of building entries at maximum 15mspacings. Street regulations were either summarised in one table or on sheets organisedaccording to street types, numbering anything from five (figs 5.5 & 5.6 Cirencester) to seven(figs 5.7 & 5.8 Hastings) to nine (figs 5.9 & 5.10 Rotherham).

Requirements for street rights-of-way were also very comprehensive. Street furniture was usually treated as either broad aspirations orspecified in detail (materials and/or manufacturers). For public art, Hastings noted “It may be appropriate to include artworks which shouldbe conceived and developed in discussion with the local communities”. Hastings also regulated the distance to which signage and buildingdetails could project beyond the building line. Swindon’s coding of streets was distinctive for articulating its street typology primarily in termsof their width and the built forms that front onto them (building typologies, frontage widths and continuity, building heights and cornicelines, and demarcation with arcades, colonnades, string courses and/or front gardens and walls).

Detailed architectural definition of streets was also included in the Newcastle and Ashford codes, alongside performance criteria. For example,active frontages were prescribed, requiring that principle entryways and principal rooms must face the street. The requirement for buildingentries to face the street was included in a very large number of both pilot and advanced codes, seldom with any illustration or furtherspecification. Newcastle divided the coding of each character precinct into matters which are ‘public realm’ (streets, on-street parking) andthose which are ‘private realm’ (building uses, type and height, setbacks, plot coverage).

Fig 5.4 Ashford, street hierarchy

93

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.5 Cirencester, street coding hierarchy Fig 5.6 Cirencester, street coding


94

Fig 5.7 Hastings, street coding

Fig 5.8 Hastings, street coding

Fig 5.9 Rotherham, street coding

95

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.10 Rotherham, detailed street coding requirements


96

Among the advanced cases, the extent of street coding varied (figs 5.11 & 5.12 Upton).In terms of street hierarchy, a minority included general aspirations only for items such astraffic calming and shared surfaces, whilst four of the eight were comprehensive in thescope, detail and prescriptiveness, with street codes ranging from urban design aspects suchas the use of ‘horizontal traffic calming’ (enclosing streets with buildings which reducesightlines (fig 5.13 Swindon) and homezones, to numerous operational regulations such asspeed limits, maximum gradient and minimum forward visibility. The consistency of thelatter suggested they were drawn from highways design manuals; and typically they weregiven little or no relation to the other urban design considerations of the codes.

In terms of the street space, six of the eight advanced cases included a range of detailedrequirements such as street lighting and other street furniture treatments (fig 5.14 FairfieldPark), street trees, boundary treatments (fig 5.15 Upton), road and pavement surfaces, andkerbs and details (fig 5.16 Upton). These were almost invariably coded as a series ofhierarchical types with different profiles and pavement widths, as with Fairfield Park (fig5.17 Fairfield Park). Fairfield Park also included numerous detailed drawings of drainagechannels, paving and boundary walls, presenting recommended solutions rather thanstandards. Newhall and Greenwich, whose codes focused mostly on built form, were almostentirely lacking in aspirations for the public right-of-way. At Hulme, doors were to be atmaximum 15m intervals to ensure active streets (fig 5.18 Hulme), whilst enclosure ratioswere given for streets, squares and parks, effectively setting frontage heights for thesurrounding buildings (fig 5.19 Hulme).

Among the non-code cases, Port Marine specified the need for a dense, highly permeablegrid and Newcastle Great Park for a flexible east-west grid. Road widths and road andpavement surfaces were always specified; but standards for street trees, boundary treatments,public art or street furniture were only found in some cases. The street hierarchy of all four‘non-codes’ specified the inclusion of cycle lanes and three covered traffic calming. Amongstthe non-code projects, Newcastle Great Park provided the most comprehensive element ofstreet coding (fig 5.20 Newcastle Great Park).

Fig 5.11 Upton, street coding

Fig 5.12 Upton, street coding Fig 5.13 Swindon, detailed coding of right-of-way alignment

97

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.14 Fairfield Park, street furniture coding


98

Fig 5.15 Upton, street boundary treatments Fig 5.16 Upton, detailed coding of street details

99

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.17 Fairfield Park, hierarchy of street profiles


100

Fig 5.18 Hulme, ensuring active streets Fig 5.19 Hulme, proportioning the public realm

101

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.20 Newcastle Great Park, street coding – table of requirements


102

103

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5


PARKING:

The pilot codes varied in the attention they paid to parking. Six of seven codes set both numerical standards and design requirements for on-street parking (fig 5.21 Rotherham), and four did so for off-street parking as well. However, across all the case studies, it was not always clearwhether parking requirements could or must be met on or off-street. The pilots generally prescribed the location and form of off-streetparking; all seven defined parking courts (fig 5.22 Swindon & fig 5.23 Rotherham), and four offered codes for private garages, including theirdistance and entry from the street and their location on site (fig 5.24 Swindon, figs 5.25 Hastings & fig 5.26 Hastings). Often freestandinggarages were prohibited and/or their architectural expression was circumscribed. Some codes either required or encouraged the placement ofgarages underneath the main building and/or away from main frontages and intersections. For high-density areas in Aldershot, like in WestSilvertown, “Access to parking will be predominantly from rear courtyards to maintain the continuous street frontage”. Blank walls facingstreets were typically discouraged.

West Silvertown focused on the organisation of access to parking (to minimise conflict with its pedestrian waterfront) and screening parkingwith colonnades. Numerous codes constrained the width of access drives into parking courts. Greenwich offered a page of specific designsolutions for communal podium parking. Fairford Leys showed detailed design drawings which served as specifications rather than regulations(fig 5.27 Fairford Leys). Upton offered a comprehensive set of regulations, including provision for secure cycle parking, sockets for electriccar-sharing, and setting a maximum of 1.5 off-street spaces per dwelling, as well as schematic plans of courtyard organisation (fig 5.29Upton), as did Ashford (fig 5.28 Ashford). Because densities were often high, courtyard (mews) parking was generally preferred over garagesor kerbside parking, thus requiring coding for surveillance. Lightmoor, like many, limited the number of parking spaces in courtyards, as wellas the number of garage doors in a row in terraces.

Private (off-street) parking standards and design were generally covered in a separate section to public (on-street) parking, as this demandwas related to land use mix and density. Newcastle Great Park asserted that parking near home should be expandable in width to 3.3m toaccommodate wheelchairs, whilst Cambourne provided space for disabled parking. Greenhithe restricted garages to within the buildingcurtilage.

Fig 5.21 Rotherham, on-street parking Fig 5.22 Swindon, parking courts


104

Fig 5.23 Rotherham, parking courts Fig 5.24 Swindon, private garages

105

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.25 Hastings, private garages Fig 5.26 Hastings, private garages


106

Fig 5.27 Fairford Leys, detailed specification for parking areas Fig 5.28 Ashford, parking courts

107

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.29 Upton, parking courts


108

109

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5


OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE:

The pilot codes were seldom used to regulate the design of private open space; but did set controls on the size of private outdoor space,including building setbacks, defining indirectly front gardens. They also regulated the landscaping of streets and set standards for public openspaces. Four of the pilot cases had reasonably extensive requirements for open space, setting planting standards (such as spacing and types oftrees) and controlling the design of front gardens. Two other pilots only coded for building setbacks. Aldershot’s draft code did not includecomprehensive details of its open space standards, which were limited to the dimensioning and casual surveillance of mews, although itincluded an overall standard for private open space (front + rear gardens = minimum 10m). Hastings provided a clear statement of play spacestandards, with their locations having already been determined by its regulating plan – an approach also used at Cirencester.

Cirencester’s draft code had given detailed regulations of private open space for various house types, but this had been removed from thefinal version, allowing the more flexible placement of houses. A number of Hastings’ open space provisions related to their prime goal ofenvironmental sustainability; including use of native plant species, increasing biodiversity, creation of wildlife corridors with bufferedperimeters and forbidding lighting within them, reducing water usage and hard surfacing and the use of SUDS, as well as recommending theuse of fountains to mask noise pollution from traffic. Their code encouraged provision of outdoor space which is suitable for drying washing(to reduce energy used in dryers), and recommended private outdoor space which “allows residents to sit outside”. Street trees and boundarytreatments were almost always coded in the pilot cases, usually as part of the coding for the hierarchy of street types, which was typicallymore detailed than that for open space.

Five of the eight advanced cases used the masterplan to define their open spaces. Fairford Leys, by contrast, provided a whole volumedetailing landscape design criteria for 25 public spaces in great detail (fig 5.30 Fairford Leys). Two other codes listed tree species, size, and soforth, as a feed into detailed landscape plans, whilst Greenwich provided such detail as general landscaping parameters for all areas. Two ofthe codes said little about open space, while Hulme had a very different focus, with aspirations for the enclosure of urban open spaces (fig5.31 Hulme), making sure they were functional and maintained, and encouraging high quality landscaping in private urban outdoor spacessuch as courtyards, roof gardens, balconies and window boxes. Greenwich, like Hulme, aspired to define the ‘urbanness’ of spaces throughthe careful specification of width to height ratios (fig 5.32 Hulme). Front garden dimensions were given in three cases, rear gardendimensions only once. Six of the advanced cases coded for street trees (species, size, spacing), and five for boundary treatments.


110

Most open space decisions were embedded in the masterplan for the non-code cases; although in some, documents included detailedlandscape plans for all open spaces. Front garden dimensions were regulated in three of the four cases (Cambourne noting they could besmaller on the north side of streets), and structural landscaping and planting standards in two cases. Cambourne provided an extensiveplanting palette and was the only non-code case to aspire (albeit vaguely) to regulate street trees and planting. Cambourne also suggestedlocations and forms for public monuments, as did the Swindon pilot, which also prescribed fountains. National Playing Fields Associationstandards were cited twice, but as guidance rather than requirements.

Fig 5.30 Fairford Leys, detailed landscaping specifications

Fig 5.31 Hulme, ensuring enclosure of public spaces Fig 5.32 Hulme, hierarchy of street profiles


LAND USE MIX:

Five of the pilot codes sought to regulate unit sizes and types (fig 5.33 Cirencester). Newcastle and Rotherham listed the unit types suitable foreach street type, Hastings and Aldershot for each block. Aldershot’s code also featured a table of building types, the densities they could achieveand the streets and blocks for which they would be appropriate (fig 5.34 Aldershot). None were prescriptive. Swindon was both simpler andmore definite, requiring between 10% and 20% cottages on any one street (fig 5.35 Swindon). In contrast to the advanced codes, tenure mix andaffordability were not mentioned in the pilots. There was also relatively little attention given to land use mix within the pilot codes.

Cirencester’s draft code had included a prescribed building type with commercial on the ground floor and residential above, but removed thisfrom later drafts. Specified ranges of non-residential uses were permitted in Hastings on identified block frontages (fig 5.36 Hastings) and inRotherham and Newcastle on several major street types. Rotherham listed use classes, highlighting that such controls are little more thanzoning; Newcastle prescribed uses by floor – ground floor, first floor and other floors. Adaptability for changes in use was a more commonconcern, addressed by all but one pilot, although some were merely aspirational. Hastings permitted lot widths to vary between 4.5m and 8m,“to create an adaptable pattern of development that can accommodate incremental change” (fig 5.37 Hastings), although there was nocompulsion to provide variation. Rotherham’s structural requirements for ‘Adaptable Shop Units’ were similar to Upton’s. To suit possiblefuture changes of use, Ashford and Aldershot set minimum floor-to-ceiling heights in their mixed-use cores.

Fairford Leys was the only advanced case with no coding for land use or unit type, which was instead entirely determined through itsmasterplan. At Lightmoor, developers “must ensure a wide range” of unit types; and must also provide an indicative plan showing location ofthe types, tenures and affordability of units. A varied and fine-grain mix is expected, including single person housing, but no other standards orcriteria are given. Upton provided a clear summary table of uses and unit types which are permitted in each character area (figs 5.38 & 5.39Upton), whilst a requirement for 22% affordable housing is to be met through individual development briefs – i.e. through masterplanning.

Fairfield Park’s code set out the locations of unit types in its regulating plan and matrix (figs 5.40 & 5.41 Fairfield Park), establishing that inthe interiors of major street blocks a wider variety of unit types is allowed, although all buildings must be two storeys. Affordability and rentaltenure were mentioned more often than unit type, sometimes in connection with Section 106 agreements. The general aspiration was thatsuch housing should be indistinguishable from other housing, and for this reason there was no separate coding for it. Fairfield Parkprescribed scattering of affordable units, “in groups of not less than six or more than nine”. Greenwich offered examples of desirableintegration of sets of affordable units within four multi-unit building typologies, including 3D drawings.

111

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Building adaptability was addressed by three advanced codes. Greenwich was merely aspirational. Hulme’s broad guidance suggested “spaceshould be left to accommodate uses not currently viable”, such as shops and services, and that “non-housing development should bedesigned with sufficient flexibility to enable change of use without major refurbishment works”. For Upton, a section on ‘flexible frontages’prescribed floor-to-floor heights of 3.6 to 3.9m for ground floors, the use of construction techniques that allow easy and efficientmodifications, configuring internal circulation to allow potential independent access to upper floors, and design of floor structures to allow forfuture conversions. Appropriate areas for flexible buildings and mixed use were also mapped. Five of the advanced codes had aspirations forthe land use mix, but these issues were addressed through the masterplan, including locations of commercial and community uses andidentifying areas suitable for mixed use buildings.

The four non-code cases had relatively few aspirations for land use or unit mix, and fewer still prescriptions. Port Marine aspired to deliveradaptable buildings, and Newcastle anticipated allowing for future flexibility through variation in plot sizes. Cambourne pursued a mix of unittypes. Greenhithe embraced both issues and pursued a mix of uses within the ground floor of apartment blocks.


112

Fig 5.33 Cirencester, regulating plan for unit types Fig 5.34 Aldershot, table of appropriate buildingtypes, densities and locations

Fig 5.35 Swindon, coding for a specific unit type

113

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.36 Hastings, coding for block frontages


114

Fig 5.37 Hastings, coding for varied lot widths

115

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.38 Upton, unit types and land uses for differentcharacter areas

Fig 5.39 Upton, character areas Fig 5.40 Fairfield Park, regulating plan

Fig 5.41 Fairfield Park, matrix of lot sizes, buildingtypes and boundary treatments which accompaniesthe regulating plan


116


NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER:

Across the range of case studies, most codes included coding that was applicable to specific ‘areas’. In some codes, such controls definedactual geographical neighbourhoods that were different in character. In other cases, ‘area’ controls defined a hierarchy of street and block typeswhich were morphologically different, and which could be applied to locations where that type and intensity of development was appropriate.The former tended to suit projects where the built form is morphologically uniform (especially areas of detached housing). The latterpresupposes masterplanning of both a street layout and urban form, with coding providing the next layer of detail. Whichever approach isused, the differences between individual areas are usually generated by taking particular generic code parameters (e.g. height, roof slope) andsetting different standards for them. ‘Character’ is therefore built up by the particular mixes of these elements, as the detailed codes themselvesare seldom character-specific. Another feature common to many codes was that some key areas have more prescriptive standards than others.

Among the pilots, Cirencester defined neighbourhoods in terms of morphological difference: and a plan of ‘character areas’ is repeated in thecode as a plan of ‘building types’ (figs 5.42 & 5.43 Cirencester). Newcastle combines character-driven and morphological approaches,including character areas called ‘Boulevard’, ‘Neighbourhood Spine’ and ‘Riverside edge’ as well as one called ‘Neighbourhood General’ whichis divided into seven distinct sub areas. These offer considerable context-specific detail, reflecting the nature of the project regenerating anexisting area of development. Aldershot (fig 5.44 Aldershot) pursues neighbourhood distinctiveness through eight ‘town character’ areas and

Fig 5.42 Cirencester, plan of character areas Fig 5.43 Cirencester, plan of building types Fig 5.44 Aldershot, character areas

117

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

seven ‘ridge character’ areas, as well assix smaller sub-areas “where importantcharacter areas overlap”. Hastings providesa model, with one-page introductorysummaries for its four character areas, withcross-reference to the relevant detailed coderequirements.

Amongst the advanced case studies, Uptonincluded a table which shows what detailedcode requirements are applicable to eachcharacter area (fig 5.45 Upton). However,these character areas tend to determineurban forms which are focused alongdifferent classes of street in a hierarchy,rather than through other differences incharacter. Similarly, at West Silvertown,character areas are defined through a rangeof different urban morphologies within themasterplan, including a spine road,courtyard blocks and crescents.

Each of the non-code cases used amasterplan to define neighbourhoods orvillages, rather than using other detaileddesign guidance to set parameters for laterneighbourhood differentiation. Greenhithe,for example defined nine ‘character areas’each focused around an open space orhistoric building, and organised theremainder of its guidance on this basis.

Fig 5.45 Upton, character area coding


BUILT FORM AND TOWNSCAPE:

Across all 19 case studies, the coding of built form and block layout always included provisions for townscape and built form, often buildingfrom masterplanning principles (fig 5.46 Swindon). This included controls on building line and height, the latter usually expressed in numberof storeys and expressed graphically (fig 5.47 West Silvertown & fig 5.48 Upton). Natural surveillance was another very common built formrelated aspiration (often with particular reference to the need for overlooking of internal parking courts), although there was no simpleformula for how to ensure this. The scope, depth and innovativeness of built form coding varied considerably between cases.


118

Fig 5.46 Swindon, coding for townscape Fig 5.47 West Silvertown, builtform controls

All seven pilot studies had comprehensive codes for built form and block layout. This was one topic where considerable scope and detailcontinued to be added as code drafts progressed. In addition to townscape, building height and building line (figs 5.49, 5.50 Rotherham &5.51 Ashford), the pilot codes generally regulated density; block sizes; frontage continuity and requirements for perimeter blocks; buildingtypes (detached, terrace etc.); other boundary setbacks; and projections (canopies, porches, arcades, colonnades). In contrast to Upton,Rotherham did not prescribe block sizes, allowing mews as an option. Hastings provided detailed codes for a typology of sectional interfacesbetween streets and buildings which covered privacy strips, ground floor insets for colonnades and setback angles for additional storeys

119

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.49 Rotherham, regulating plan for building lines Fig 5.50 Rotherham, coding of building linesFig 5.48 Upton, regulating plan for building heights


120

above the prescribed shoulder height (fig 5.52 Hastings). The Hastings code also responded to the steep topography of the area throughcoding the relation between the ground floor entry and the street level; varying eave and roof line to respond to terrain, and encouragingplacement of living areas on the downslope side of sites to optimise daylighting (fig 5.53 Hastings).

Aldershot, asserted that “A block will be surrounded by a number of different street types, so the edge of the block must therefore respond tothe creation of character appropriate to the street hierarchy”. They included a regulating plan for density (fig 5.54 Aldershot), which linked toa table of appropriate housing types, and one for height (fig 5.55 Aldershot) promoting prominent corner buildings. Other codes were moreprecise, and also included minimum heights (fig 5.56 Hastings). Cirencester allowed variation in floor-to-floor height (2.5m to 4.4m), with thesame aim as Greenwich of providing a varied roofline. Inhabited roofs were counted as half a storey. Envelope controls at Hastings includedrestrictions on gable-ended roofs which were designed to minimise the ratio of volume to surface area, and thus minimise heat loss. Builtform controls served a wide range of objectives, aesthetic, urbanistic and functional.

Fig 5.51 Ashford, regulating plan for building lines Fig 5.52 Hastings, detailed coding of building linein vertical section

Fig 5.53 Hastings, coding for building slopes

121

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.54 Aldershot, regulating plan for density Fig 5.55 Aldershot, regulating plan for buildingheights

Fig 5.56 Hastings, regulating plan for minimum building heights


122

Fairfield Park was amongst the most comprehensive of the advanced codes, although its layout had already been masterplanned inconsiderable detail. Its regulating plan set out storeys, key frontages which were to be composed of particular kinds of continuous and/ordetached building types, and yet others which were unregulated (fig 5.57 Fairfield Park). Plots were defined by their width-to-depth ratios(fig 5.58 Fairfield Park). Prescription of eave lines and roof ridge lines effectively produced a coded ‘roofscape’. Sheets defining ten ‘keygroupings’ (fig 5.59 Fairfield Park) included illustrative plans and 3D drawings, yet they provided principles and visions without settingstandards or prescribing elements. Fairford Leys had a complex coding for frontages, requiring maximum and minimum percentages offrontage to be built-up, maximum percentage and distances for façade projections, and for bridging entranceways to internal courts (fig 5.60Fairford Leys). Hulme prescribed enclosure ratios for streets, squares and parks (fig 5.61 Hulme), effectively setting frontage heights forsurrounding buildings, although buildings of less than 100m2 footprint were to be unrestricted in height, to create a varied skyline.

Fig 5.57 Fairfield Park, regulating plan Fig 5.58 Fairfield Park, coding for plot dimensions Fig 5.59 Fairfield Park, detailed requirements for‘key groupings’

123

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Greenwich similarly set both maxima andminima for building heights, the formerrelated to solar penetration into courtyards,and encouraged variation in height “tocreate a lively roofline and façade”.Lightmoor required developers “to producespecific (i.e. distinctive) designs for cornerbuildings”, and provided illustrations oflocal examples (figs 5.62 & 5.63 Lightmoor).It also mandated that overlooking of privateparking courtyards “must be designed in”,and listed flats over garages as one ofseveral solutions. Where Hastings hadpermitted varied lot widths to facilitateincremental change, Lightmoor noted thatthis could also introduce townscape variety.Upton’s chapter on block principles

Fig 5.60 Fairford Leys, frontage continuity Fig 5.61 Hulme, proportioning the public realm

Fig 5.62 Lightmoor, exemplars for the design ofcorner buildings

Fig 5.63 Lightmoor, illustrations of exemplars


124

provided a clear requirement for perimeter blocks and prohibited blockconsolidation. It establishes three block types to be deployed across themasterplan, although frontage setbacks varied according to street type notblock type. The only height regulation along major streets was a minimumone – three storeys.

Among the non-code examples, townscape for Greenhithe meantemphasising corner buildings and the end units of terraces. Landmarkbuildings and key building frontages were identified in Port Marine’smasterplan, although there was no obvious regulatory mechanism toensure their quality. Cambourne’s requirements for a mix of housing typesseemed to serve an aesthetic objective of providing visual interest throughshifts in scale and massing. Port Marine specified that housing blocksshould run along site contours (rather than across them), to reinforce itsdramatic landform (fig 5.64 Port Marine), whilst Newcastle Great Park hadonly general aspirations to respond to landform, and also to consider themicroclimatic effects of building layouts. The Greenhithe design statementrestricted frontage widths for terraces; it also required that frontages nearthe waterfront should not be continuous, but rather stepped, to allowglimpses through to the water from deep within the site.

Fig 5.64 Port Marine, harmonising development with landscape form

125

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5


ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:

The level of control required over building design varied dramatically between the different kinds of case studies. The pilot codes thatregulated building scale usually did so only through constraints on height; Ashford set a minimum floorplate size: Hastings prescribed detailedmassing envelopes with 3D setbacks (fig 5.65 Hastings), and these, along with a requirement for buildings to be staggered on slopes (fig 5.66Hastings) served their aspiration for visually interesting rooflines. Visual interest was sought at Aldershot through allowance for feature doors.Like the advanced codes, the pilots contained detailed aesthetic controls and tended to look to local context for standards (e.g, verticalproportioning, or matching local bricks). However, the use of traditional character was only mentioned explicitly in Aldershot and in

Fig 5.65 Hastings, detailed coding of buildingenvelope

Fig 5.66 Hastings, coding for building in hilly terrain Fig 5.67 Swindon, coding for traditional character


126

Swindon’s very detailed coding (fig 5.67 Swindon), although Cirencester also required compliance with the traditional approach toarchitectural design contained in the separate district-wide Cotswold Design Code (fig 5.68 Cirencester).

Rotherham and Ashford, by contrast, deliberately pursued contemporary architectural expression. Ashford’s attempted to code for ‘Kentishcontemporary’ (fig 5.69 Ashford) drew upon a thorough list of characteristic local architectural features. It required “balancing horizontals andverticals” and asymmetrical designs which “lead the eye” (although it also aspired to the ancient principle of façades having a base, middleand top). For Rotherham, similarly, “The facade and visual structure of buildings should include elements of both horizontal and verticalorientation (not excluding other angles or near equivalents) to avoid a single predominant orientation”. Here, coding of architectural designwas “deliberately less prescriptive to allow for flexibility, innovation and variety within the realm of architectural style”. Whilst Hastingsexplicitly avoided judgments on style. Rotherham wished its riverfront to have “consistent building type and style”, but did not say what stylethat should be.

Fig 5.68 Cirencester, coding for local character Fig 5.69 Ashford, coding for ‘Kentish contemporary’

127

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Design details were regulated in only fourpilots. The most detailed, Swindon,included five A3 pages of illustrations ofappropriate and inappropriate elementssuch as string courses, cornices, lintels,rustication, chimneys, balconies, doorwaysand gates, as well as correct patterning ofsolar cells on roofs (fig 5.70 Swindon) – butthese did not set measurable standards.Corners were usually coded only in termsof urban scale, although Aldershot notedthat “corner frontages should becontinuous” (fig 5.71 Aldershot), andAshford that both facades should bearticulated (fig 5.72 Ashford). Five codeshad controls on fenestration. Ashfordrequired residential windows to havevertical proportions and two or threedivisions, and public buildings to havetransparent ground floors. Rotherhamrequired of shopfronts that “Openings anddisplay windows must follow the structurallogic and pattern of openings for the wholebuilding”, whilst Aldershot required thatwindows and other sub-elements shouldconform to the proportioning of the façade.

In the coding of rooflines, Newcastle banned half-hipped and mansard roofs. Hastings banned blank gable ends from facing higher-orderroads. Materials and colours were almost always controlled, most clearly at Rotherham (fig 5.73 Rotherham) and Swindon (fig 5.74 Swindon)through the use of a palette. Aldershot were more flexible, including provision that “There is no defined palette of materials for buildings... inthe interests of not restricting architectural expression, however once the palette is set for a character area it must be applied consistently andadjoining areas must respond appropriately”. In doing so the code implies that early parcels will set the precedent for later ones. Extensions

Fig 5.70 Swindon, ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ design details


128

Fig 5.71 Aldershot, coding for corner buildings Fig 5.72 Ashford, coding for corner buildings Fig 5.73 Rotherham, colour and material palette

129

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

to buildings were never specifically coded,and many architectural aspirations wereencouraged rather than required, so as notto hinder design excellence.

The advanced codes almost neverprescribed scale and massing for individualbuildings, other than as part of widertownscape objectives (fig 5.75 WestSilvertown). Greenwich set volumetricprinciples which conformed to its detaileddesign masterplan. However, most of theadvanced codes contained detailed aestheticrequirements which drew their inspirationfrom analysis of the local architecturalcontext. Greenwich was again an exception;reflecting the lack of any significantestablished residential context near the site.

Distinctiveness was never an expressed architectural objective in the advanced codes and none of them mentioned style explicitly, or required‘contemporary’ solutions. Instead, coding addressed a range of discrete elements and properties of architecture. Six of the eight codes aspiredto create visual interest, although both target standards and means of ensuring this were usually unclear. Lightmoor cautioned “the temptationto create interest by combining a wide variety of materials should be avoided. Visual interest should come predominantly from the form ofthe building rather than its materials”, and aimed to use “a limited palette of materials”. Materials (either acceptable or unacceptable),fenestration and design details such as porches, colonnades, doorcases, brickwork openings and string courses were also commonlyregulated, particularly at Fairfield Park. Newhall forbade “‘add-ons’ to elevations to distinguish one house from another in the mind of thebuyer... pastiche and fake architectural devices should be avoided”. Fairford Leys set limits on the percentage of a street’s doors which couldhave elaborate designs (figs 5.76 & 5.77 Fairford Leys), although it was not clear exactly what this meant.

Fig 5.74 Swindon, brick and paintwork palette Fig 5.75 West Silvertown, coding for buildingmassing


130

Fig 5.77 Fairford Leys, coding for doorsFig 5.76 Fairford Leys, coding for doors

131

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.78 Fairford Leys, coding for fenestration Fig 5.79 Fairfield Park, coding for fenestration

Fig 5.80 Upton, proportion of facades


132

Fenestration was often coded (figs 5.78 Fairford Leys & 5.79 Fairfield Park). Fairfield Park’s code advised that for visual interest, “On largerbuildings odd windows, such as staircase windows or oriel windows can be placed in asymmetrical positions on a façade. These differentwindows should be small, individual or of a different format to the other windows and should not dominate or unbalance a façade. Thewindow to wall ratio on any one wall should be no greater than 1:3, on any building no greater than 1:5 and on a north facing wall nogreater than 1:5”. Fairford Leys specified window proportions, whilst Upton required the use of the ‘golden section’ for proportioning entirefaçade layouts (fig 5.80 Upton).

Another design element usually coded wasroofs, most commonly their pitch, but alsotheir shape (fig 5.81 West Silvertown),roofline direction, eaves, dormers,chimneys (whether functional or asscreening for equipment), and very oftenthe material and colour of rainwater goods.Four advanced codes addressed the wideruse of colour. Fairfield Park provided a listof acceptable bricks and slate and a colourpalette drawn from National Trust archives(figs 5.82 & 5.83 Fairfield Park), whilstothers’ pallets drew upon local examples.West Silvertown took a design-ledapproach, and established a sophisticated‘colour route’ which defined buildingcolour schemes to distinguish between ‘thepublic realm’ (buildings on major streets),‘the private realm’ (buildings interior toprivate courtyards) and ‘special’ buildings(community uses) (fig 5.84 WestSilvertown).

Fig 5.81 West Silvertown, coding for roof shape

133

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Two of the non-code studies made noprovisions at all for architectural design. Bycontrast, Port Marine’s SPG determined thatbuildings “should reflect the vernacular”,and although contemporary design wasalso “encouraged”, any specifics werelacking. Cambourne regulated scale andmassing. It required consistentproportioning of facades, with tripartitevertical composition. It also required thatfaçades at various locations on the siteshould be styled “in the manner of 17th –18th Century buildings”, “stoic, serious” or“formal classical... similar to many EastAnglian village Corn Exchanges”. Designerswere warned: “DO NOT use an excessiveamount of one colour. DO NOT overdovariety”. Very different requirements wereset for Cambourne’s business park whichrequired the use of a “sophisticated curtainwall system” and the industrial area whereflexible single-span layouts were sought,although with no controls on externalappearance.

Fig 5.82 Fairfield Park, materials and colour palette drawn from National Trust archives

Fig 5.83 Fairfield Park, materials and colour palette drawn from National Trust archives

Fig 5.84 West Silvertown, colour scheme for buildings


134

Content and expression

Expression

SUMMARY

No single format for codes is apparent, and instead codes are structured, expressed andpresented in the light of local circumstances.

Most codes were seen as robust working documents, primarily meant for a professional audience, that, if appropriately presented, can alsobe used as promotional tools.

The consensus is that diagrams, tables of requirements, detailed plans, sketches and precedent illustrations should be dominant (not words)and that photographs should be illustrative; although in practice words often dominate.

2D illustrations, often combining annotated plans and sections (especially sections of street types), can obviate the need for 3D images.

Codes should systematically and gradually break down elements of the built environment for users, moving from strategic to detailedconcerns.

A testing exercise can help to refine the content and particularly the expression of codes, e.g. where jargon is undermining comprehension.

Enough detail is required to give clarity and certainty, but precision to legal standards is not a major concern; nevertheless, codes that aresuccinct, as a result, also seem to be open to greater interpretation.

Careful expression should distinguish mandatory from advisory components of codes.

Careful cross-referencing between different elements in codes, careful justification of specific codes, consistency of page layouts, attentionto document structure, clear numbering of pages and sections, and avoidance of ambiguous aspirational statements are all features of theclearest codes, whilst codes should begin with a succinct guide to their use, and with an explanation of how they relate to the physicalvision.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

135

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

5.8 Different stakeholders were more or lessconfident about the extent to whichcoding could be used to prescribeelements of the built environment. Atone end of the spectrum some believedthat all aspects of the built environmentwould lend themselves to coding. At theother, a number of areas were identifiedas potentially problematic. Theseincluded:

Detailed architectural design and styleissues (there was a feeling amongstsome that coding should concentrateon public realm concerns, and shouldnot be prescriptive about architecturalelements to avoid stifling innovation).Existing housing areas and one-offbuildings (i.e. for community use).Sustainability dimensions.

5.9 Concern was also expressed about theneed to be seen to legitimise the codes.For example, in Cirencester, the keyinfluences on the code are articulated,including contextual analysis, communitydialogue, and the vision, before thecodes themselves are offered. InHastings, the code follows the structureof government guidance on designcontained in ‘By Design’ in order tolegitimise it.

5.10 It was widely argued that codes shouldbe as user-friendly as possible, an issuegiven particular consideration inAshford. There, the codes themselvesare in the form of bullet points, whilstrunning text provides a rationale,diagrams are used for illustration andclarity, and tables provide detail. InHastings, the intention is to use a loose-leaf format so that pages can beassembled in different ways for differentsites and purposes. To aid this, all thepages have the same layout and arecross-referenced to each other. Bycontrast, the decision to confine‘inspirational’ material to a DesignStatement in Aldershot has resulted in aless attractive and less friendly codedocument than originally envisaged.

5.11 Most pilot teams felt that a carefulbalance was required betweendescriptive text and imagery, whilstattempting to produce codes that wereboth inspirational and informative, forexample through the use of illustrationsand photographs. In this regard acommon set of views were expressedacross the pilots:

Diagrams should be dominant, notwords, and are particularly importantto aid parcel designer comprehension.

Process issues can also be coded, forexample guidance on submissionrequirements for reserved mattersapplications, or establishing roles andresponsibilities within the codingprocess, laying out evaluation orengagement procedures, identifyingrelationships to other designpolicy/guidance tools, and so forth.

Codes need to be flexible enough todeal with changing circumstances overlong-term project horizons, for exampleby using supplemental parcel codes.

Where greater flexibility is required,other forms of detailed design guidancemay be more appropriate.

One danger of over-prescription acrossall forms of design guidance seems tobe the inflexibility it engenders in thoseresponsible for the code’s regulation,even when design improvements arebeing suggested by applicants.

Other illustrations and photographsshould be indicative only, and toavoid the code being used as apattern book should reflect neitherexclusively traditional nor modernstyles.

5.12 Illustrating this approach, in Swindonthe intention was that diagrams wouldbe used to describe all mandatoryelements of the code, with photographicillustrations to provide examples forinspiration.

5.13 Regarding the structure of codes,typically pilots were opting to graduallybreak down elements of the builtenvironment as the documentprogresses, thus ensuring a systematicand logical coverage of key elements. InSwindon, for example, the code is in theform of five books, dealing respectivelywith introduction and background,overall coding principles, and onevolume for each of the threeneighbourhoods. These are accompaniedby a series of A0 building line drawingsthat set out the entire development inplan form. Other pilots also intended tosupplement the main code with separatesub-codes for individualparcels/character areas, includingAldershot’s proposed mini-codes. In this

case, the mini-codes will offer thepotential for a more flexible approach tocoding, providing a means tosupplement the master code over timeto reflect changing circumstances.

5.14 An important concern for all pilot teamswas the balance between prescriptionand flexibility. Developers generallyfavoured greater flexibility in order tokeep their options open to sell offparcels to other developers. Localauthorities, by contrast, prefer greaterprescription. Collectively, however, aview persisted that codes need to beflexible enough to deal with changingcircumstances over long-term projecthorizons.

5.15 Within this general framework,stakeholders felt that it was legitimate tobe more prescriptive over certaindimensions than others. Highways andpublic realm issues often fell into theformer category, as did design in themore sensitive historic areas, forexample in Aldershot. There,unfortunately, the lack of any clearrationale for design decisions,consideration of delivery, orcomprehensive approach to design or tothe historic context, seems to underminethis aspiration.

5.16 In Rotherham, a view was advanced thatcoding dealing with the public realmand block edges should be prescriptive,with block interiors advisory, and thatdimensions of urban form should becoded in detail, whilst the balance ofuses should remain flexible. Thedecision was taken to structure thedocument according to scale andimportance, thus the regulatory plan sitsat the beginning of the document as thekey element in the code, whilst moredetailed concerns are dealt with towardsthe back, including materials.

5.17 A similar view was expressed in adifferent manner in Swindon. There itwas concluded that those dimensionsthat need to be controlled requirecareful prescription whilst other issuescan be left more flexible. The view inSwindon, and elsewhere, was that ahigh level of detail in the code will give(not reduce) clarity, and that designerjargon should be avoided (or at leastexplained) where possible. In reality,this code is long and detailed andresembles a pattern book rather than acode, with everything prioritised to thesame degree. As a consequence it doesnot give a sense of what is importantand where there is flexibility. In Ashford,this view extended to coding for process


136

137

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

issues (i.e. guidance on submissionrequirements for reserved mattersapplications). Good coding of this type,it was believed, can help to clarify rolesand responsibilities. Newcastle seemedto be an exception, where some overlydescriptive and imprecise text made itdifficult to resolve the different optionspresented in the code, leading to a lackof clarity and potential difficulties forthose charged with its interpretation.

5.18 In Hastings, careful expression is beingused to distinguish mandatory fromadvisory components. For example, it ismandatory to achieve the MillenniumCommunity Standards, but how they areachieved is advisory. However,disagreement was at first apparent aboutwhich elements should fall into whichcategory, with some inconsistencyaround the use of the terms ‘must’,‘should’ and ‘will’. The Ashford codetakes a similar approach, using ‘must’,‘may’, ‘should’ and ‘could’ to relay thebalance between mandatory andadvisory elements, and ‘example’ and‘indicative’ next to illustrations.

5.19 Although a general feeling existed thatprecision in the wording of text wasrequired to avoid ambiguity –

particularly if the intention was to adoptcodes as SPD – there was little feelingthat precision to legal standards wasrequired. Although stakeholders hopedthat justification in the text and precisewording backed by illustration wouldwithstand legal challenge, few expectedsuch circumstances to arise; particularlywhere there is no legal agreementbetween the partners.

5.20 From the evidence it seems that thebalance between robustness andflexibility is a difficult balance to strike.Concern was expressed, for example,that the complexity of some codesmeant that they were difficult to updateover time, particularly if the originalconsultants were no longer in place. Akey lesson might be that codes need tobe conceived and expressed in the lightof the skills and resources available tothose who will be charged to implementthem. Another has been the value of atesting exercise to establish whether thecodes are capable of delivering thedesign aspirations sought by theirpromoters. Each pilot project wentthrough a ‘code cracking’ exerciseduring which participants were asked toproduce a housing layout using thecode. These events were widely

regarded as valuable means to helprefine the expression and content of thecodes.

5.21 Typically the advanced codes werestructured to move from strategic todetailed concerns, sometimes overlainwith a topic by topic (Harlow,Greenwich), or area by area sub-divisions (Fairford Leys). Upton takesthe strategic to detailed approach, andmoves to re-structure it on a topic bytopic basis during its first review wererejected because of user familiarity withthe initial approach. In Fairford Leys,although the area by area approachlooks at first daunting, because users aregenerally only concerned with one area,users report that it is relativelystraightforward to interpret and use. TheHulme code, by contrast, is compactwith a clear structure and unclutteredformat. The guidance is meant to besimple, jargon-free and inspirational, aswell as providing a means to conveybasic ground rules for control purposes.As such, stakeholders argue it has beeneffective at getting over key principles todevelopers, reinforced by the messagethat non-compliant schemes need notbid for sites.


138

5.22 The glossy and concise layout at Hulmehas also been valuable in raisingawareness of the development and inthe marketing of the area as a new placeto live. Presentation of the other codesvaried. The predominance of illustrationsat Lightmoor, for example, has alsomade the document both highly useableand valuable for marketing purposes,whilst the presentation of the WestSilvertown code reflects its nature as aworking, rather than a public, document,although the designers recognise thattoday desktop publishing wouldtransform its appearance. The purposewas nevertheless to deliver a robustcode that accommodated changes andcould respond to different designambitions.

5.23 At Upton, great care was taken that theillustrations encouraged neither modernnor pastiche solutions. Indeed feedbackhas indicated how useful the illustrationsare, although concern was expressedabout the confusing level of detail insome. The Fairford Leys code usestables of requirements, detailed plans,sketches and precedent illustrations tocommunicate requirements in legallyprecise terms, whilst at Fairfield Parkdifficulties in interpreting the regulatingplan and matrix are put down to their

presentation, whilst full colouraxonometic drawings of key buildinggroupings and illustration and guidancerelating to Victorian detailing are seen asvery helpful.

5.24 Only a small number of issues were feltby some to be difficult (although notimpossible) to code for, including:

CommunityCharacterArchitectural style.

5.25 Developers were generally in favour offlexibility and argued against coding forelements that were open to variableinterpretations. The different codes allstruck different balances on the questionof flexibility, balances that carried ondeveloping – in both directions – as thecodes were used. At Hulme, the codehad originally been based on the rigidand inflexible Seaside model from theUS. A process of refinement developed amore flexible model, with clearmandatory principles, but flexibility inhow they might be achieved. At WestSilvertown, a balance needed to bestruck between clarity and detail,reflecting the perceived audience –mainly professionals and politicians.Stakeholders agreed that the codes werein fact too prescriptive, and that whilst

the layout needed to be clear and set instone, the remainder of the coding couldhave been more flexible to avoidrepetitive designs. In fact, most issues inthe code were mandatory.

5.26 One danger of over-prescription seemsto be the inflexibility it engenders inthose responsible for the code’sproduction and policing, even whenimprovements are being suggested.At Upton, the question of flexibilityversus prescription is clearly an issue onthe evidence of the wide range of viewson the relative flexibility/inflexibility ofthe code. Thus whilst EnglishPartnerships felt the code gave a lot offlexibility on some aspects (i.e.architectural detail) but not on others(i.e. road layout), the developer felt thatthe code was too inflexible throughout.In this case, great attention had beengiven to expression to distinguishmandatory from non-mandatoryelements, although in practice developersseem to interpret most of the code asmandatory. The second edition of thecode makes the distinction more clearly.

5.27 At Lightmoor, following the mandatorydevelopment framework, two types ofcodes are offered – ‘general designcodes’ (non-mandatory general

139

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

principles), and ‘district design codes’(mandatory and non-mandatory, withoptions for interpretation). Thus thecode was meant to both control andinspire, although the designers recognisethat it is not always entirely clear what isrequired and what is not. In Newhalland Greenwich, the codes weredeliberately expressed in a non-prescriptive way, with little detail,particularly on architectural matters.Consequently they are succinct and clearto read, although also open toconsiderable interpretation – from theirlandowners and masterplanners as wellas potential developers. In Newhall,however, the code has been interpretedmore and more strictly for eachsuccessive parcel, suggesting that greaterprescription may have been moreappropriate from the start.

5.28 By contrast, the level of prescription atFairford Leys, not least on architecturalmatters, has resulted in a developmentwhere developers claim that clients areunable to distinguish their products fromthose of their rivals. This is viewed bythe local authority as a good thing andas a testament to the effectiveness of thecode. It also allows them to be robustwhen faced with breaches of the codeor even objections from third parties.

At Fairfield Park, concern over thedegree of prescription led to theinsertion of a statement that details hadthe status of guidance only. Generally,however, all stakeholders, includingdevelopers, were positive about thelevel of detail in the code, particularlygiven the proximity of the new housingto the listed centrepiece to thedevelopment.

5.29 The non-code schemes were subject tothe same debates and concerns withregard to the degree of prescription anddetail. At Cambourne, the developerswere particularly concerned over theextent of prescription regarding unit mixand sizes, preferring to leave suchmatters to the market, whilst others feltthat architectural matters and privatespace should not be the subject ofdetailed guidance. Although themasterplan and overall design guideremain unchanged, the briefing planshave become less prescriptive, not leastto prevent developers slavishly followingindicative layouts and designs which hadbeen a problem in the early phases. Theresult is a general feeling that theguidance strikes the correct balancebetween flexibility and prescription,although developers expressed someconcern that the flexibility has been

used against them, with differentinterpretations being made in similarcircumstances and underminingcertainty. The highways guide wasparticularly clear, with issues clearlydifferentiated by the terms ‘must’,‘should’ and ‘could’. Unfortunatelyexperience has shown that developerstend to ignore the ‘coulds’.

5.30 At Greenhithe, the clear, logical andrepetitive structure used for the characterareas enhanced clarity, and carried withit the conviction of all parties thatarchitectural detail should not be thesubject of the guidance. Illustrations andeasy to understand bullet point listswere used wherever possible, with allparties concerned to allow enoughflexibility for changes in marketcircumstances over the course of theproject. In this case, an agreed flexibilityin interpretation has been a feature ofboth developer and local authorityduring successive reserved mattersapplications.

5.31 A similar flexibility was noted in relationto the guidance used at Port Marine,with those involved concerned thatspontaneity should not be lost from thedesign process. Here, illustration wasfavoured wherever possible, and


140

mandatory elements were distinguishedwith the words ‘need to be’ as opposedto ‘could be’. In fact, the closeassociation between the elements of themasterplan and clauses in the Section106 agreement has ensured that much ofthe guidance is mandatory. By contrast,the surfeit of guidance at NewcastleGreat Park has tended to undermineclarity, with concerns expressed that theflexibility that has resulted has led todisappointing outcomes in the firstphases of the development. Moreover,despite the fact that the guidance hasnot been tested, worries abound that thelack of precision concerning how thevarious documents should be used makethem open to considerable interpretationand to potential challenge.

DESIGN CODE REFERENCEWhat the codes contained: ExpressionThe level of clarity and prescriptiveness of the pilot codes was generally high, and indeed itwas difficult to see how many codes would allow any flexibility to provide for variation indesign execution. The notable exception was Cirencester, where precise requirements froman earlier draft had later been removed, allowing a higher level of flexibility ininterpretation. All codes contained numerous aspirational statements, general guidance andadvisory elements which were not always backed up by specific standards or requirements.Although all the codes comprehensively covered the urban design agenda, Swindon,Ashford and Hastings were the only codes with comprehensive architectural coding.

In many ways Hastings provided an ideal model for a code, combining much of the bestpractice of the others. Following a succinct guide to its use, four main colour-coded andnumbered sections reflected the logic of the design process: layout; built form; landscape andpublic realm; and detail and materials. Pages had standardised layouts, with statements ofrequirements followed by justifications, accompanied by simple images specially prepared toclearly convey the principle, and clear and thorough cross-referencing to other relevant codepages. Aldershot was similarly well-organised, with each page itemising objectives, principles andkey dimensions, although its content was incomplete at the time of review, and compliancewould be open to greater interpretation reflecting the fact that the requirements themselves weremore vaguely worded and were less often illustrated or expressed in a measurable form.Swindon was also very detailed and prescriptive, with the most thorough use of illustrations, butit lacked any clear rationale for much of its content, as did most other codes.

In format, the pilots all used 2D illustrations, often combining annotated plans and sections(especially sections of street types), which often obviated the need for 3D images (fig 5.85Aldershot); photographs of indicative examples were also common (fig 5.86 Aldershot).Tables were used frequently, particularly for highways requirements (fig 5.87 NewcastleWalker Riverside), which often seemed to have been copied from road and footpathstandards. Rotherham’s tables were abundant, small and often unnecessarily repetitive, for

141

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

example details which seldom changedbetween street types, or which could havebeen more clearly expressed in illustrations.

Upton was the most detailed andprescriptive of the advanced codes, setting astandard for expression and control whichwas only matched among the pilot codes bySwindon and Hastings. Upton presentedclear, precise and well-justified requirementsfor a wide range of aspects of development,making good use of both illustrations andnumerical standards to communicateintentions. Fairfield Park also had extensiveimages and quantitative information andboth were used to particularly good effect inits regulating matrix (fig 5.88 Fairfield Park),although elsewhere the text was extensive.

All the advanced codes included both 2Dand 3D illustrations, and almost all includedtables of requirements and indicativeexamples. In four of the advanced codes,advisory and illustrative elementsoutweighed mandatory ones. At Upton,much prescription is actually achievedthrough the very detailed masterplan.Similarly at West Silvertown, the text did notmatch the high level of specificity in thedrawings.

Fig 5.86 Aldershot, using photographs of indicativeexamples

Fig 5.85 Aldershot, coding with 3D images

Fig 5.88 Fairfield Park, regulating matrix

Fig 5.87 Newcastle Walker Riverside, table of highway requirements


142

Hulme gave the strongest justification for its guidance. In this case the code needed to bepersuasive as it was advisory rather than mandatory, and accordingly it lacked images andquantitative standards. Explanations of how a code was to be used within the design andapproval process were generally lacking, apart from Upton, which provided a usefulflowchart (fig 5.89 Upton), and Newhall, where the code had been part of the brief for aninvited design competition. Fairfield Park required specific kinds of design drawings to besubmitted as well as a design statement explaining compliance with the code. Consistencyof page layouts, attention to document structure, and clear numbering of pages and sectionsaided navigation through the documents.

The non-code documents were very rarely prescriptive. They tended to offer general advicethat was either advisory or merely illustrative of possible approaches, and which thereforeallowed a high degree of flexibility in interpretation. There was less scope and detail than inthe design codes, and more text than illustrations, although all of the ‘non-codes’ used 2Dimages, and most used 3D images and indicative examples. Port Marine’s guidance was themost detailed; it also offered more justification for its recommendations.

Fig 5.89 Upton, flowchart of approval process

143

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Engagement and adoption

Engagement

SUMMARY

Community consultation on technical codes is both difficult and undesirable, althoughcommunities can still be kept informed.

If expressed in non-technical language and in an accessible format, the core principles of codes can be consulted on as the critical ideasunderpinning the physical vision.

Community engagement should occur prior to coding, when the physical vision is being defined, although formal public consultation maybe required during code adoption.

Community planning events with a focus on establishing a broad physical vision are valuable in building a consensus around the ideaof coding and in establishing momentum.

A wide range of creative means can be found to involve the public and stakeholder groups during the evolution of the physical design(i.e. masterplan) of coded and non-coded projects.

The failure to engage all key technical stakeholders (external and internal to organisations) can quickly undermine trust in the work ofcoding teams and in the code.

The highways authority is a key technical stakeholder who should be involved from the start of the coding process; indeed earlyinvolvement can help to overcome resistance to abandoning out-dated highways standards.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

5.32 Two types of engagement were beingundertaken; engagement with thecommunity and engagement of otherstakeholders. Taking the latter first, theinvolvement of various stakeholders inthe code production process variedalongside their different roles andrelationships (discussed above). In morethan one pilot team, engagement andtrust between stakeholders haddeteriorated during the coding process,reflecting significant disagreementbetween stakeholders about the contentof the code and the process leading toits adoption.

5.33 In Ashford, the development consortiumhas been disappointed with theslowness of the code writing andadoption process and so are pressingahead with detailed planningapplications for future phases of thedevelopment prior to the adoption ofthe code (not the original intention). Inpart the problem resulted from thedifficulties faced by the consultants inreconciling conflicting views thatemerged during the two workshops heldto air stakeholder views on the codes.Elsewhere, particularly where codes areless advanced, more positive approachesare being taken, not least to involvestakeholders outside the immediate code

production team. In Newcastle, a seriesof ‘critical friends’ (future projectarchitects and parcel designers) havebeen involved to give critical feedbackon what is being proposed. There,significant public involvement hadpreceded the production of the code,although with the coding projectfollowed by the decision to prepare anArea Action Plan, stakeholders wereconcerned that communities were tiringof consultation (‘Walker fatigue’ as theycalled it was settling in), and themomentum was being lost from thewhole project. In Rotherham,stakeholder engagement wasconcentrated within the local authoritywhere it was considered important toraise skill levels and secure buy-inamongst those who will be involved indelivering the code, once prepared. InSwindon, an Office Project Team wasappointed to help co-ordinate the workof different departments within thecouncil, and includes a dedicated officerto manage the council’s work on theSouthern Development Area.

5.34 Interviewees argued that theengagement of the public with the codepreparation process was generallyminimal. Indeed a widespread viewexists that public consultation on coding

is both difficult – because of thetechnical nature of coding – but alsoundesirable if public involvement hasalready occurred during themasterplanning process. An exceptionwas made for statutory consultationprocesses that might be necessary duringany formal adoption processes.

5.35 Pilot teams were aware that consultationwould be required if plans to adoptcodes as SPD were to be carriedthrough. The aim for the majority ofpilot teams was to ensure that adequatepublic engagement had already occurredduring the development of the physicalvision, for example the Enquiry byDesign exercises at Aldershot, Newcastleand Ashford, and that some form offormal public consultation followed thepreparation of the code to legitimise itprior to adoption. Exceptions includedCirencester and Rotherham where theleast work had been done onmasterplanning the sites. In Cirencester,where the code was produced prior tothe masterplan, its production wasaccompanied by a community event inNovember 2004 at which examples ofcodes were introduced to the audience,followed by a walkabout in Cirencesterand a bus tour of surrounding villages toidentify what makes the town and


144

Cotswold villages distinctive, and finallyan evening session to establishcommunity aspirations for the site. Inthis case the designers argued thatconsultation was only undertakenbecause a masterplan for the site did notyet exist, but also that the event hadvery little impact on the code that wasfinally delivered.

5.36 Consultation exercises at Rotherhamincluded a series of workshops thatwere primarily attended by officers fromthe local authority, and the distributionof leaflets in the local area requestingviews – none were received back. Thedeveloper/landowner felt that this wasnot an effective system of consultationand that the local authority lackedinterest in the views of other commercialinterests, wishing instead to promote apre-conceived notion of a small scale,mixed-use development.

5.37 It was widely believed that more activeinvolvement during the coding processwould lead to consultation fatigue andin time to public apathy. In Swindon,where consultation processes havecontinued following the completion ofthe masterplan, interest has waned.There, the discussion focused on testingthe illustrative master plan principles

and on defining appropriate characterreferences for the code. Althoughattendance at these events wasdisappointing, the council intends toconduct further consultation on thecompleted codes. In Hastings, thecommunity representative agreed thatextensive involvement was probablyinappropriate, but argued that the publicshould be kept informed about thecoding process, for example through thealready established newsletter. There,the consultation that did take placeremained at a strategic level because thecode was considered too technical forthe general public.

5.38 The extent of public consultation variedconsiderably within the advanced casestudies, a factor explained in part by thedifferent role of the codes in each casestudy. At one end of the scale, theHulme code was subject to extensiveconsultation – stakeholder andcommunity – and all intervieweesconfirmed that the process wasgenuinely and intensively inclusive. Herethe code was a glossy, non-technical,public document, and the onlypublished output from the designprocess. In parallel with, and informingthe design of the code, detailed designswere being prepared of the social

housing with participation from residentsto test urban forms and densities.Residents were involved extensively inthe initial development framework,masterplan and in the detaileddesign/testing processes, as well as indiscussing the principles that finallymade their way into the code.

5.39 At the other extreme, the code atGreenwich Millennium Village wasregarded as a private document andtherefore – to the regret of some – notavailable for public scrutiny. There wasno public consultation either at Newhallor Fairford Leys, justified on the basisthat there was almost no existingcommunity, and in the case of theformer because there was very littlelocal opposition to the proposals, andfor the latter, because the local authorityas part landowners could representcommunity concerns. In Farifield Leys,new residents have not been involved inthe production of the codes, whilst atNewhall, as the first parcels arecompleted, new residents will beconsulted on future phases. Stakeholdersinvolved in the West Silvertown sitefaced a similar situation, with almost noestablished community in the area.Tenants in two tower blocks wereballoted and voted for relocation, freeing

145

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

land which became the village green.These codes – like most – were moretechnical in nature, and not immediatelyaccessible to a non-professionalaudience.

5.40 Typically residents were consulted onphysical masterplanning proposals whichwere seen as tangible and meaningful toresidents, but not on the more technicalcodes. This was the case at Lightmoorwhere local residents were extensivelyconsulted on the masterplan in the runup to the outline application, with a PRconsultant being employed to allay theirfears. Moreover, for each reservedmatters application, the applicant isrequired to give a presentation to localpeople before the application is made.In the case of Upton, the overall form ofthe project originated at an Enquiry byDesign process during themasterplanning stage, whilst a regularnewsletter was sent out to the generalpublic at the beginning of the project toinform them of progress. These werelater stopped (to the regret of some),and no specific consultation hasoccurred on the code. At Fairfield Park,local residents were consulted on themasterplan and coding proposals jointlyin a series of public meetings at keystages in their development in the run

up to the planning application.Subsequently, formal presentations havebeen used to keep residents informed.

5.41 Extensive technical stakeholderconsultation on the codes was a featureof the advanced case studies. In FairfieldPark, for example, the councilundertook consultation with the localtown and parish councils, drainageauthorities, the police authority,neighbouring local authorities, amenityorganisations, utilities providers, as wellas, indirectly – through the workinggroup – with relevant internal audienceswithin the local authority itself.Technical consultation with other localauthority departments was a feature ofmany processes, although not always onthe codes themselves. In WestSilvertown, for example, fortnightlyproject meetings on the masterplan wereattended as and when necessary by thehousing and education departments ofthe local authority, although only thehighways department was consulted onthe code. At Newhall, the developmentteam approach adopted to deliver theproject has involved all key departmentsin the formulation of the proposals,including the codes.

5.42 The non-code case studies did not facethe problem of whether or not toconsult on technical coding documents.At Cambourne, an attempt was made toinvolve local residents and councillorsfrom the outset. Thus representatives ofeach group sat on the Development andEnvironment Group of key stakeholdersthat typically discussed emerging designguidance and the briefing plans, whilst aConcept Office was set up on site wherepeople could view plans and modelsand a timeline indicating progress. Inaddition a series of open evenings andpresentations to the CambourneResidents Association have beeninstigated, and local schools have beeninvolved in the design of the playspaces. Despite the efforts,dissatisfaction exists locally about whatis seen as a lack of information andtransparency about the development,whilst residents have been vehementlyopposed to proposals to increasedensities on the remaining developmentparcels. On the technical side, a numberof workshops with key stakeholders,including highways, fed into themasterplan and guidance, but thedesigners still regret that highwaysadoption officers were not more fullyengaged early in the process.


146

5.43 The developer at Greenhithe faceda concerted anti-development lobbyagainst the proposals, and employeda PR consultant to produce a regularnewsletter and hold focus groups andpublic exhibitions to explain theproposals during the outline planningstage. Ideas expressed at the publicexhibitions were fed back into andinformed a revised masterplan, andgenerally local residents seem to behappy with the results. The teams atPort Marine and Newcastle Great Parkadopted a similar range of approachesto involve the local community andstakeholder groups – including thoseinternal to the local authorities – in thedevelopment of their proposals. In theformer case, these includedpresentations as each character areawas developed, the result being prioragreement from most stakeholdersbefore formal applications were made,and overall a very smooth planningprocess.

147

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5


148

DESIGN CODE REFERENCEWhat the codes contained: EngagementAll of the pilot codes described in some detail the forms of consultation used during thecode preparation process, including design workshops (at Newcastle, a 5-day Enquiry byDesign) (fig 5.90 Newcastle Walker Riverside); circulation of newsletters; publicpresentations; public exhibition of drafts for feedback; meeting with local councillors; andthe use of focus groups and community forums. One code stated that full details of publicconsultation were available on a website, another provided a contact person for details.Swindon noted the public consultation for its code had been acclaimed as ‘best practice’ in a Government report and also used a specialised consultant to manage stakeholderconsultation.

The early draft of Cirencester’s code included 18 pages describing the form and outcomesof community involvement in the preparation of its masterplan, including a school youthworkshop. This was subsequently reduced to one page in the final code, reflecting the shiftfrom project validation to regulation. Cirencester also included a flow chart showing stagesof review and local community input into the process (Fig 5.91 Cirencester).

Four advanced codes described processes of consultation: for three, this merely meantregular internal communication between the core working group and their consultants. Thedetailed planning and design brief which preceded Newhall’s design code involved “detaileddiscussions” with highways authorities which “led to greater flexibility in highway standards”,and with Essex County Council officers who had prepared the well known Essex DesignGuide.

Guidance for Newcastle Great Park mentioned the need for public consultation. Port Marineshowed a flow chart of the development process which indicated consultation and approvalphases (fig 5.92 Port Marine). The Cambourne guidance had been developed with numerousdistrict and parish councils and many national government agencies.

Fig 5.90 Newcastle Walker Riverside, timeline of thecoding and approvals process

149

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

Fig 5.92 Port Marine, timeline of the coding and approvals processFig 5.91 Cirencester, community input into thecoding process


150

Engagement and adoption

Adoption

SUMMARY

A wide range of approaches have been used successfully to give codes status, including:formal adoption as SPG, adoption for development control purposes, conditioning throughthe outline planning process, use of development agreements, control of freehold rights, asbriefs for design competitions and developer procurement, through submission as reserved matters information, and various combinationsof the above.

If intended as public documents as a material factor in the making and deciding of planning applications, then formal adoption seemsvaluable to enhance the status of codes.

Formal recognition of codes for highways purposes is also highly desirable to overcome highways and drainage adoption problems later.

Pilots wish to adopt codes as SPD or as Area Action Plans to give them greater weight.

Transitional arrangements are being used during the switch to the new planning process, by adopting codes as Interim DevelopmentControl Guidance.

Some councillors remain concerned that codes could lead to a diminution of their planning powers in what are typically large and locallysignificant projects. Without a culture change, such attitudes may undermine the potential for codes to be adopted through LocalDevelopment Orders (LDOs).

If conditioning is used as a means to give status to design guidance of all types, careful wording is required to provide the level offlexibility or firmness desired.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

5.44 Faced with the changed requirementsencompassed in the new planning act,there was uncertainty about how codeswould be adopted. Predominantly,however, the assumption was that codeswould be adopted through the planningprocess, either as action plans or SPD.In Ashford, the intention is to adopt thecode as SPD for both planning andhighways purposes. The local plannersare concerned that until this happens,they lack the mechanisms with which toattempt to deliver design quality. InRotherham, initially debate surroundedwhether to adopt the code as SPD or toprepare an Action Plan as part of theLDF. However, in the transition to thenew LDF system, the authority had beenadvised not to be over-ambitious, and sohad decided to pursue the SPD route. InCirencester, despite the current positionof the code in limbo, the intentionremains to adopt it as an annex to themasterplan, which will in turn beadopted as SPD.

5.45 Transitional arrangements were beingused by some pilots. In Hastings, thecode has been adopted as DevelopmentControl Guidance, and later it may beformally adopted as SPD. This, it wasbelieved, will enable the code towithstand challenges at appeal,

eventually apply to areas outside theprimary landowner’s ownership (perhapsin the form of an Area Action Plan), andsupport any necessary CompulsoryPurchase Orders. The process of codeadoption turned out not to bestraightforward, and required that anumber of concessions were made bythe landowner. They commented thatthe Planning Board seemed to beconcerned about how the code mightaffect their authority in the area.Rotherham also plan to adopt as SPD,but have been informed that the priorityof the authority should be to adopt theLDF first, and the code later, rather thanboth in parallel.

5.46 Elsewhere, legal agreements are beingdrafted to give codes appropriate weightin the absence of formal adoption. InNewcastle, formal adoption is notexpected until 2006, and legalagreement will be pursued in theinterim. In Swindon the code will beapproved pursuant to a planningcondition, a process during whichHighways will be consulted. The codewill also form part of the land salesagreements; directly in the case of thecouncil owned lands, and via theformalised Collaboration Agreement inthe case of the land over which the

developer holds an option. Earlyfeedback suggests that, whereconsidered, Local Development Orders(LDOs) are viewed with suspicion interms of their ability to deliver quality.Finally, in Aldershot, the originalintention was for the code to besubmitted with the outline planningapplication. Instead it is now expectedthat a condition to the outlinepermission will require the productionof the code prior to the submission ofany reserved matters applications.

5.47 The advanced coding projects had hadlonger to consider and act on the prosand cons of the different approaches toadopting their codes, and a range ofdifferent approaches were chosen. Atone extreme, in Greenwich, the localauthority had never formally receivedthe code, reflecting the code’s role asprimarily a private decision-makingdevice for English Partnerships. Analternative approach was taken in Uptonwhere the code was adopted as adevelopment control document on topof the safeguards already in placethrough the landowner developmentagreements. The code for Hulme hadnever been adopted formally as SPG butthe guide was adopted by the localauthority for purposes of development

151

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5

control, and therefore has some limitedstatus in development control. AtFairfield Park, the code has been subjectto public consultation so could havebeen adopted as SPG, but instead wassimply approved by the Committee asrequired by the terms of the outlineplanning permission. Some regret existsamongst the council officers about this.They argue that adoption as SPG wouldgive the document more weight in thecase of any appeals, although so farthere have been none.

5.48 Other cases had not formally adoptedtheir codes, but found other ways togive them status. At West Silvertown thecode was tied to the developmentagreement and had no planning weight.Indeed interviewees argued that therewas no need for formal adoption as theLDDC (the instigators) were bothlandowners and planning authority, andalso co-signatories of the developmentagreement through which the developercould obtain the freehold only uponcompliance with the terms of theagreement. The London Borough ofTower Hamlets nevertheless endorsedthe document, thus meeting a conditionto the outline consent.

5.49 At Newhall the code documents havenot been adopted either, and have legalstatus only in relation to the sale of theland to parcel developers. For thedevelopment of the third parcel, thisstatus was removed, and instead thedevelopers were selected as jointventure partners to build a conceptdesign commissioned by the landownersand developed utilising the code as abrief. By contrast the planning/designbrief and masterplan were approved bythe local authority under a condition tothe outline permission, although thecodes themselves are not referred to inany condition. Thus codes are simplysubmitted as information in support ofreserved matters applications. AtLightmoor, although the code is notformally adopted, it can rely on acondition in the outline consent, whichstates “development shall be inaccordance with the design guidance”.

5.50 Problems with the highways adoptionprocess dominated the discussion ofproblems encountered by the advancedcase studies. For example, at FairfordLeys where codes have not beenformally adopted, the relationship (orlack of it) with highways adoptionofficers has led to difficulties. Regularchanges of personnel at the county

council have left planners feelingfrustrated that code compliant schemesdo not necessarily gain the support ofhighways adoption officers despiteprinciples having been previouslyagreed and incorporated into the codes.More critically, despite the intention ofthe developers to provide street treesand public art in the public spaces, thehighways authority has refused to adoptroads and spaces with such features onthe basis of the maintenance liabilitythey represent. Attempts by the codedesigners to compensate by specifyingthe inclusion of planting and treeswithin front gardens is only partiallyaddressing the problem.

5.51 At West Silvertown, despite consultationon the code with the highwaysauthority, the adoption officer did notsee a copy of the code, and did not fullyconsider highways matters until reservedmatters applications were submitted. Itseems that the code itself was notconsidered particularly relevant by thehighways authority who instead weredetermined to consider highways issuesin the normal manner – after-the-fact.Even when highways adoption issuesare considered in advance, it seems thatproblems can still result. At Newhall, forexample, although the highways


152

proposals were approved in principle byhighways officers at the masterplanningstage, when implemented on site theyhave still raised adoption problems.Some argue that in this case pre-adoption of the codes might have beenvaluable, if for no other reason than toget a formal agreement prior toimplementation.

5.52 The non-coded cases also illustrated adiversity of approaches to adoption. InNewcastle, the original Great Parkmasterplan was adopted as SPG, andalong with UDP policy is linked to theplanning permission through the Section106 agreement. The authority also wishto adopt the subsequent more detailedmasterplan, but in the transition fromthe old to the new planning system haveso far been unable to do this. A failureto fully integrate highways adoptionstandards or to seek variation from themin the guidance seems to be the main

adoption difficulty, again revealing thepotentially problematic highwaysadoption machinery.

5.53 At Greenhithe, the framework fordevelopment and the character areastudy are both referred to in a conditionto the outline consent as approveddocuments, but this does not state thatall detailed applications should strictlyadhere to them. This has allowed thedeveloper to vary elements during thedetailed applications process inconsultation with the local authority. Inthis case, highways approvals have beenvery smooth because of the bespokestandards that have been agreed for thesite through what the highways officerreferred to as no more than a‘gentlemen’s agreement’. The approachhighlights the vital contribution ofpersonalities and personal relationshipsto the successful negotiation ofregulatory processes.

153

CODEDESIGN

Ch 5


154

6 Code deliveryBeyond the processes of designing the design code itself (and related instruments) will be the processes ofdelivering actual development on the ground through design, development, development control and other formalregulatory processes. These delivery processes are likely to be intimately tied to, and dependent for their successupon, the processes of code preparation, adoption and engagement that came before.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

155

CODEDELIVERY

Ch 6

Design and DevelopmentSUMMARY

One benefit of coding has been the ability to challenge the status quo of housebuilding, from concept design through to procurement and construction.

Codes help set quality aspirations that not all designers and developers are able to meet, and in doing so weed out such players early in the process.

They help to establish a level playing field for developers when tendering for projects, enabling an efficient tendering process based onclear quality benchmarks.

Codes can be used as an important feed into the design and development procurement process, as part of the parcel briefing process or asthe basis for limited design competitions.

They can provide a means to assess potential parcel design/development teams and their proposals.

A pre-selection process prior to full tendering may help to cut down the significant resources developers are required to invest in preparingcode-compliant bids.

Implementation of any design guidance can be all too easily undermined if processes are not in place to consistently focus on deliveringhigh quality outcomes.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

6.1 At the conclusion of the monitoring andevaluation, few of the pilot codes werein a position to use the codes to informscheme design and/or developmentprocesses. Nevertheless, in Ashford theconsortium believed that the process ofdeveloping the code had an early andbeneficial impact on the designprocurement process by identifying thatnew parcel designers were needed.Moreover, although in draft form, thecode was used as a detailed brief for thenew parcel designers to work to, forexample, setting the parameters for thehigh street and the residential blocksand character areas. It has also beenused to demonstrate the qualityexpected by developers who arecontributing the non-residentialcomponents of the scheme and who areoutside of the consortium. Workshopshave been run with these stakeholders,including the primary Care Trust, andthe draft design code has provided thebasis for discussion. Finally the code isalready being used as the basis for aseries of parcel briefs which are beingprepared for later phases of the schemethat the consortium intend to sell off toother developers.

6.2 In Hastings, only one developer finallycame forward to be part of the jointventure agreement, but all parties werehappy that the code had ensured thatthe aspirations of that developer weresuitably high. Those involved argue thatthe code gave greater certainty todevelopers who were consideringinvolvement about what was required,and in doing so enabled developers totarget their proposals more efficiently. InNewcastle, the main developers were onboard from the start, but they werenevertheless supportive of codes,believing that they help to level theplaying field for all those who tender forsites.

6.3 The transition from design codepreparation to the actual developmentdesign on the basis of the code wasparticularly smooth at West Silvertown,largely because in this case the codedesigner became the developmentdesigner. This sped up the process andled to a greater certainty with regard tooutcomes and to savings on designconsultants. The experience is theexception rather than the norm. AtLightmoor, for example, where it took ayear to work up phasing proposals forreserved matters applications, the design

costs were substantially higher than oneof the parcel developers would normallyexpect for a scheme with outlineconsent and an existing design guide.

6.4 Codes sometimes had other unexpectedimpacts in the journey from paper toproject. Whilst much of the content ofthe Hulme code, for example, is verygeneral, other aspects are very specificand not always consistent. Thus whileone part of the code requires levelaccess for dwellings at ground floorlevel to facilitate less mobile users,another part required raised groundfloors to enhance overlooking andpassive surveillance of the street.Another conflict resulted in therequirement for clearly defined andunbroken building lines, leading to theloss of mature street trees from the site.Finally, the requirement to articulatestreet corners with landmark buildings,not only presented design challenges,but arguably reduced legibility as allstreet corners were emphasised to thesame degree. These potential glitchesonly materialised as the code was usedin practice and as the development wasgradually built out. One result has beenthat known problems have beeninterpreted in an increasingly flexible


156

manner as the project started, illustratingthe need to carry on learning as a resultof design practice throughout thedelivery phase.

6.5 Similar issues were faced at FairfieldPark, where departures from the codehave been required to modify some ofthe building footprints defined in thecode matrix, which no longer workedafter elevations had been designed. AtGreenwich also, environmentalperformance targets have sometimescome into conflict with the masterplan,requiring modifications to theconfiguration of the latter. Typically thishas required discussions between parceldesigners and the masterplanner toensure that the original mastrplanphilosophy is not compromised. Theparcel architects believe it depends onchoosing parcel designers anddevelopers who are sympathetic to themasterplan and code agendas, and alsohaving an open dialogue which doesnot preclude the potential for variations.

6.6 The same applies at Fairford Leys wheredevelopers were only invited to join theconsortium if they were willing toembrace the vision and spirit of thecodes. Parcel architects have in turn had

to produce schemes that are both codecompliant, and which satisfy themarketing requirements of their clients,the housebuilders. The processinevitably meant that the sales andmarketing teams were forced to departfrom their conventional wisdom, forexample by providing features whichthey felt their customers would notappreciate. One housebuilder reported aperception amongst his buyers thathandmade bricks looked like cheap‘bent’ rejects, whilst admitting that theoverall effect was one of quality andcoherence.

6.7 In case studies such as West Silvertown,the developer was already in placewhen the code was prepared, and thecode had no bearing on that selection; afeature of the Greenwich case also.Elsewhere, the codes had a significantimpact. At Lightmoor, for example, adesign evaluation matrix derived fromthe code was produced for eachdevelopment parcel. This matrix wascentral to the selection process andoperated as follows:

Tenders were opened to developers,with a development brief thatincluded the design matrix.

One to one meetings occurredbetween the prospective developersand the design team to ensure theyunderstand the code and are focusingon delivering quality.Anonymous tenders are administeredby English Partnerships and checkedfor compliance.Each design is scored against thedesign matrix.Each financial bid is independentlyassessed with no knowledge of thedesign score.A preferred developer is selected byweighting scores on a 60:40(design:financial bid) basis.

6.8 Those involved on the codedesign/landowner side believe theprocess had a beneficial effect in raisingthe standard of design, although theprocess was time consuming largelybecause developers were unfamiliar withthe design code concept. For their part,parcel developers argued that thefinancial outlay during the tenderprocess was much more than for otherprojects, and the process might beimproved by short-listing prospectiveteams earlier in the process, rather thanrequiring detailed tenders from up to ten

157

CODEDELIVERY

Ch 6

teams. The local authority was alsounhappy that they had been left out ofthe process.

6.9 At Upton, the code has been used as anessential part of the procurementprocess, not least as a basis fordiscussions between different sides ofthe process. The codes are used as partof prospective developers’ informationpacks and incoming proposals areassessed against them, with proposalsweighted 70% on design and 30% onfinancial offer, emphasising theimportance of the codes if developershope to win the bids process. Theprocess itself has been refined over timein the light of experience, and despitedeveloper concerns, English Partnershipsand the local authority are happy withthe results. However, one parceldeveloper involved during the firstphase was so concerned about thelength of the developer selectionprocess and the large upfront costs itinvolves that they decided not to bid forsubsequent phases. Nevertheless thetwo-stage process adopted at Upton hadforced this developer to employ arespected architect in order to win theirparcel bid. In that respect, they believed,it had helped to raise the standard ofdesign.

6.10 At Newhall a range of procurementprocesses have been attempted in orderto deliver better quality. The first andsecond parcels used conventionaldesign/offer and conditional sale of landprocesses leading to the selection of adeveloper/architect combination, withthe code being used as part of thedeveloper briefing package. The thirdparcel utilised the design code as thebrief for a landowner commissionedlimited competition, with the resultingdesign being used to select a developer.The landowner then entered into a jointventure with the selected privatedeveloper. The result has been a verytight control on the resulting design,producing a design which thedevelopers believe is unnecessarilycomplex and designed without dueregard to ‘buildability’. The developerconcluded that competitions of thisnature invariably produce expensivedesign solutions because they over-emphasise the ‘wow’ factor and under-estimate other factors.

6.11 Volume housebuilders have beenremoved from the process altogether inthe fourth phase of the development asthey have been unable to deliver thequality that the landowner aspires to.Instead, the fourth parcel is to be

directly commissioned. The process hasincreasingly emphasised design, and hasmoved further and further fromconventional procurement processes.Respondents felt that the design codeshad had a beneficial impact on theprocurement process, but observed thatthe same code had produced verydifferent outcomes in design qualityterms (parcels one and two), whilst theincreasing emphasis on design duringprocurement delivered very different andincreasingly successful design solutions.

6.12 Stakeholders at West Silvertown arguedthat the creation of design codes madelittle difference to their approach toprocuring the development, but didhave the effect of focusing attention ondesign right down to the design details.The result was the employment ofspecialist suppliers and quality materialsthat would not normally have been usedby a volume housebuilder, whilstcontractors had to pay more attention tothe details and finishes. A number ofstakeholders across the different codingprojects reported that one benefit ofcoding has been their ability tochallenge the status quo ofhousebuilding from concept designthrough to construction.


158

6.13 The experience of the non-codeguidance in use had revealed similarexperiences, generally a feeling that theguidance had helped to raise quality, butalso that compromises andinconsistencies were a factor thatneeded to be dealt with. At Cambourne,for example, design consultants felt thatsome issues should have beenconsidered in more detail from thebeginning, including phasing, spoil,drainage and refuse storage issues.Compromises were required for marketand other factors, for example in thecommercial centre, which largelyconsists of a supermarket rather thanhousing a range of shops, pubs and ahotel. For their part the county councilresisted the idea that it had to buildschools and a library in a non-contemporary style, eventually agreeingon a middle way. Moreover thelandscape requirements of the codewere directly undermined by therequirements of the SUDS exemplarproject that had been planned for the

site. All this required a degree offlexibility to resolve the conflicts.

6.14 Elsewhere, at Greenhithe, flexibility hasbeen part of the problem. In general theaspirations of the developer anddesigner to build a high qualitylandmark scheme have been wellreceived, and have been assisted by theretention of the samedeveloper/designer throughout thedevelopment with the exception of halfof one parcel. On the face of it, thesehigh aspirations and the consistentapplication of the undoubted skills ofthe architects would seem to be moresignificant than the exact nature andcontent of the guidance itself. However,for the parcel that was sold off, thecontent of the guidance has beenwatered down, with a lower qualitydevelopment being built. The localauthority is considering takingenforcement action.

6.15 At Newcastle Great Park, the earlyphases were disappointing, again

because the original guidance allowedtoo much flexibility, resulting in a lackof a coherent high standard of design.Faced with a potential ‘call in’ of theoutline application which did notcomply with the emerging PPG3, thedeveloper opted to bring inmasterplanners and architects to advisehim, and as such has raised the standardabove volume housebuilder norms; withbetter results expected in future phases.Some concern also existed with regardto Port Marine that parcel developershad been allowed to misinterpret theguidance for their own parcels, thusundermining the overall quality of thedevelopment. The combined lessonsfrom the non-code studies seems to bethat despite the quality of the masterplanor other design guidance, itsimplementation can be all too easilyundermined if processes are not in placethat focus on delivering a consistentinterpretation and quality outcomes.

159

CODEDELIVERY

Ch 6


160

Assessment and RegulationSUMMARY

Assessment of coded schemes can be successfully undertaken by either the local planningauthority, landowner/funder/master developer, code designer or other design advisor.

Bringing all key regulatory, funding and landowner/master developer stakeholders togetherto make assessments of parcel proposals has the benefit of ensuring that one co-ordinated set of comments, from one point of contact, isproduced.

Where separate processes of assessment are undertaken, parcel developers can sometimes feel trapped in the middle.

The involvement of code designers in the assessment process can help to ensure consistency in assessment, overcomes potential skills andknowledge gaps between code designers and code controllers, and allows some on-going adaptation in the interpretation of the code ascircumstances require.

The process of landowner teams and/or their representatives assessing the compliance of parcel designs with codes prior to formalplanning applications has been very effective.

Checklists, statements of compliance, and appropriate training can help development controllers to assess compliance.

Codes are perceived as robust tools for controlling design that are difficult to challenge at appeal.

Any design guidance that allows too much interpretation can lead to conflicts that need to be resolved through time-consumingnegotiations.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

6.16 Some pilots had begun to think abouthow they would assess and regulateproposals against the codes, and allenvisaged a significant role for the localauthority in this. In Aldershot, forexample, following adoption of the codeby the council, the intention was to useit to assess reserved matters applications.In Newcastle, the intention is that inputwould be sought by planning officersfrom all the constituent parts of the localauthority, before planning applicationsare determined. They were aware thatcouncillors would need to be trained tounderstand the use and purpose of thecode, but felt that one of the advantagesof preparing the code in-house hadbeen that a broad team were alreadyfamiliar with its content. In Rotherham,officers involved in preparing the codewere concerned that those who wouldneed to use it to assess applications forcompliance lacked the necessaryknowledge. To help them, a checklistwas being devised for use bydevelopment control officers to aidassessment and regulation.

6.17 Only Ashford and Hastings had actuallybegun using their codes. In Ashford, inits draft format, the code had been usedfor determining a reserved mattersapplication for Phase 1b of the

development. In this case the authoritynot only checks applications against thedraft code themselves as an integral partof the planning approvals process, butalso request a statement of compliancefrom the developer concerned. They arenevertheless happy to engage indiscussions with developers to vary thecode as long as reasoned and soundjustifications are made. Their view is thatthe code remains guidance, and is opento interpretation and negotiation if andwhen required. Highways and drainageapprovals will happen as a separateprocess and after planning permissionhas been granted, although officersbelieve that ideally these processesshould be combined.

6.18 In Hastings, concerns existed about theability of the local authority to use thecode during the statutory planningprocess, and in fact the main developerhad not yet submitted any applications.However a third party had submitted anapplication in the code area for a sitenot owned by Sea Space who, as theprimary landowner, used the code tomake representations on the applicationto the local authority. At the time of theinterviews, it was understood that thelocal authority was planning to reject the

application on the grounds of non-compliance with the code.

6.19 The extent to which the presence ofthe code might allow decisions to bedelegated to officers for the 10 yearsit will take to build out the Swindonproject was a matter of discussion.There, the local authority intend torequire that developers comply with thecode through their role as land owners,and expect a code checking process tobe established prior to reserved mattersbeing considered.

6.20 The advanced coding projects revealeda number of different relationshipsbetween the code and the statutoryapprovals process. At West Silvertown,the process of assessment was generallystraightforward, facilitated by the clarityof the code, with only very minordiscrepancies reported around suchmatters as bin carrying distances andwindow details. For their part thedeveloper referred to the code in everyreserved matters application. There, theprocess of assessment changed followingthe winding up of the LDDC which hadnot shown great interest in the code aspart of the statutory approvals process.Subsequently, when planning powersreturned to Newham, the authority

161

CODEDELIVERY

Ch 6

checked every reserved mattersapplication against the code. Thus theprocess of assessing compliance andobtaining statutory planning approvalsbecame fully integrated.

6.21 This contrasts with the situation atGreenwich. There the developerconsortium submit a detailed package ofinformation to English Partnerships foreach phase of development, followingreview by their masterplanningconsultants and completion of astatement of compliance whichestablishes that the proposals complywith the original masterplan. On receipt,English Partnerships assesses theproposed design against the code andconsult their own design mentor in theprocess. These processes are entirelydistinct and separate from the planningand highways approvals processes.

6.22 At Upton, reserved matters applicationsare assessed against compliance with thecodes by the Working group thatincludes representatives from the localplanning authority, English Partnerships,the highways authority, and the Prince’sFoundation; the latter in the role ofdesign advisor. The process has theadvantage of bringing all keystakeholders together in one place, and

ensuring that the developer receives oneco-ordinated set of comments, from onepoint of contact. Thus although furtherdetails are required for EnglishPartnerships internal sign-off, theprocess ensures that when proposalscome forward for reserved mattersapproval, the development controlprocess is simply administrative, withkey decisions already made, and apreliminary assessment made against theCounty’s Estates Road ConstructionDetails. The whole process is timeconsuming and resource hungry forthose on the control side, but has theadvantage for developers of effectivelycreating a one-stop-shop for approvals.Moreover, as developers are becomingmore familiar with the codes and knowwhat is expected of them, fewerinconsistencies are arising.

6.23 Neither the code nor masterplan haveany planning status at Fairford Leys, andplanners at the local authority arecontent to rely on the prior approval ofschemes by the landowners before theyare submitted for planning approval as ameans to ensure compliance and quality.Schemes that are not code compliant donot get past the code designer as thelandowner’s design quality custodian,and therefore fail under the terms of the

land sales agreement. This centralinvolvement of the consultant designerin the assessment process helps toovercome the skills shortages in thelocal authority, ensures consistency inassessment, overcomes problems of staffchanges at the local authority, andallows some on-going adaptation (or atleast interpretation) of the code overtime as circumstances require.

6.24 In Hulme and Fairfield Park the publicsector has taken a far more proactiverole in assessing proposals. At Hulmethe relative flexibility of the code meansthat its requirements have beeninterpreted with a greater degree ofvariation than the other codes, both byusers and approving bodies. Thus theway adherence was sought varied fromcase to case in light of the practicalproblems encountered, withinconsistencies and deviations resolvedon a case by case basis. Because theCity had wide ranging powers, aslandowner, grant distributor, and asplanning and highway authority, theyeffectively had tremendous discretion inhow the guide was interpreted. Adedicated sub-committee was set upunder the Chairmanship of the Leader ofthe Council to give approvals, somethingthat was instrumental in speeding up the


162

process (if applications were codecompliant, or when inconsistencies hadbeen resolved to the satisfaction of keystakeholders). Those involved argue thattechnical inconsistencies seem to havebeen resolved as much by political willas by negotiation between professionalstakeholders.

6.25 The codes at Fairfield Park are used atboth pre-application stage and to assessreserved matters applications, withdevelopers submitting a statement ofhow their proposals comply withapplications. So far the local authorityhas resisted variations, and to date nodeveloper has challenged the codes,instead opting to withdraw and re-submit revised proposals. The process ofassessment is simply viewed as part ofthe statutory planning process, but onethat has required a lesser involvementfrom Councillors who have been happyfor delegated powers to be used indetermining reserved matters.

6.26 Those involved at Lightmoor feel thatthe local authority could have beenbetter integrated into the process ofusing the code. At the reserved mattersstage, the code is used by the localauthority to check applications forcompliance with the masterplan and

code, but during the first phase anumber of inconsistencies still needed tobe ironed out. Those involved put thisdown to the lack of involvement of thelocal authority in the early stages ofeach parcel’s development, in either pre-application discussions or through thetender process.

6.27 By contrast, the process of assessing thecompliance of planning applications tocodes by landowner teams prior toformal submission has worked wellwhere used in the case studies. InNewhall, submissions are refined untilthe team are happy that they can besubmitted for formal approvals, the localauthority then use the code submittedwith each reserved matters applicationto assess compliance themselves. Theprocess relies heavily on the expertise ofthe code designers who are retained bythe landowner. Worries exists, however,that such processes may be vulnerableto landowners relinquishing control byselling schemes on, leading to anabsence of a robust assessment, andeventually to a lack of enforcement andquality.

6.28 With regard to the involvement ofhighways authorities, cases such asUpton and Hulme where highways

considerations are considered using adevelopment team approach seem tohave been particularly successful.Elsewhere problems have frequentlyarisen. At West Silvertown, nationalhighways standards were simplyincorporated into the code, and theprocess of assessment followed thenormal statutory process. At Lightmoor,however, the design code did notinitially reflect the level of detailrequired for highways and drainagematters. The omission led todisagreement during the assessment ofPhase One, where the highwaysauthority were felt to require differentstandards to those already agreed in thecode. Consultants were subsequentlyemployed to write a specific PublicRealm Design Code specifying thesematters in greater detail. The highwaysauthority now uses the document toassess all reserved matters applications.A similar experience at Fairfield Park hasmeant that the highways authority haschallenged some of the proposedmaterials for adoption despite beinginvolved in preparing the code.

6.29 Amongst the non-code authorities, PortMarine had adopted the most integratedapproach to assessment and approvals.There the extent of internal and external

163

CODEDELIVERY

Ch 6

consultation led to a remarkable degreeof agreement and a very smoothplanning process, with just twoapplications being referred to committee.In general the masterplan was regardedas mandatory, but not to the extent thatimprovements could not be suggested aspart of reserved matters applications.Applications are considered by threeofficers – one development controller,one urban designer and one from thehighways authority. Followingagreement of all key principles at thepre-application stage, so far they havegone through the process smoothly.

6.30 This contrasted with practice atCambourne, where, as well as formingthe basis of the briefing plans, themasterplan and guide are referred to inthe development control process withcommittee reports listing issues of non-compliance. Some concern wasexpressed, however, that the processwas often inconsistent, and non-compliant schemes have been approvedthat undermine the quality of thestreetscape. Quite separately each

proposal needs to be agreed by theconsortium before they get submitted forplanning approval. Unfortunatelysometimes this process conflicts withdecisions taken during pre-applicationdiscussions with the local authority,leading to a more lengthy process andto developer frustration.

6.31 The local authority at Greenhithe arguesthat the guidance should be mandatory,but in practice it is flexibly written andless prescriptive than a design code.Moreover, its lack of formal adoptionmeans that on occasions it is seen asadvisory rather than compulsory. Thelocal authority use the guidance duringpre-application discussions prior to eachreserved matters application, and havehad no difficulties with the maindeveloper, leading to the efficientprocessing of applications when theyarise. However, in the case of the singleparcel that has been sold off, theprocess has not been so smooth, andhere the authority would havewelcomed the extra certainty that a codemight have provided.

6.32 Newcastle demonstrated a more extremecase of too much flexibility. The cityuses the guidance to assess proposals, asdoes the developer, but unfortunately,because of the rather disjointed range ofguidance, extensive negotiations are stillrequired on every application. Moreover,development control still place moreemphasis on the general policies in theirUDP and on city-wide SPG, and tend torefer to the Great Park guidance only incases of disputes. Highways anddrainage adoptions are also consideredon their merits, because none of theguidance includes enough detail foradoption purposes. The lesson seems tobe that guidance that allows too muchinterpretation can lead to conflicts thatneed to be resolved through timeconsuming negotiations. The flexibilityof the guidance at Newcastle Great Parkseems to limit its use as an effectiveassessment tool, a problem multipliedwhere design skills are lacking withindevelopment control that couldotherwise help to fill the gap.


164

165

7 Managing outcomesAs projects are built out, codes are likely to retain an important role in delivery processes through managing thedelivery of high quality design during construction, and thereafter helping to maintain it. These roles represent anatural continuation of the procurement and regulatory processes, and encompass monitoring and enforcementand evaluation and aftercare.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE


166

Monitor and enforceSUMMARY

The advanced codes were in the main monitored by landowners and their consultant teams,with enforcement via development/land sale agreements, a mechanism that has proved veryeffective at ensuring compliance.

It seems that local authorities will be primarily responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance in the future through normal planningand highways processes.

However, the non-code case studies tended to rely on local authority monitoring and enforcement, with less overall success.

Enforcement is considered difficult and time-consuming, and unless problems are identified during construction and before the saleof a dwelling, then it is unlikely that a breach will be enforced.

Codes will be fatally undermined if enforcement is weak, yet the complexity of many codes suggests that they will be difficult to enforcewithout retaining the original code designers.

One option is for developers to fund a compliance officer within the local authority.

For the public realm, the sanction held by highway’s authorities to refuse to adopt street works is extremely effective at ensuringcompliance.

The presence of codes have generally helped to ensure that breaches are kept to a minimum, although training and additional resourceswill be required to ensure compliance.

Legal means to ensure compliance are being explored by some pilots, including development agreements, land covenants, and Section 106agreements.

Some argue that that negotiation should be possible if alternative schemes promise benefits over and above those offered by the code.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

7.1 In the majority of pilots, the view wasclearly expressed that local authoritypartners would be primarily responsiblefor monitoring compliance with thecodes as projects were built out. Somealso expressed the hope thatdevelopment consortia would monitortheir own compliance and that of theirconsultants.

7.2 In Aldershot, the landowner (DefenceEstates) was clear that monitoring thedelivery of the code on the ground andenforcing non-compliance would beentirely the local authority’sresponsibility. They conceded, however,that the code would play a part inselecting developer bids for parcelsalthough it would not form part of theland sales agreements. In Ashford, theoriginal phase of the project had failedin design quality terms in part becauseof the local authority’s own failure toenforce the drawings they hadapproved. A dedicated officer will nowbe allocated to monitor the complianceof applications with the codes, withother officers charged with monitoringthe discharge of conditions andcompliance on site. To make thisprocess more straightforward, inRotherham, a tick-box approach tocompliance is being considered, with

elements coded in a manner thatfacilitates their monitoring. There, aselsewhere, an acceptance was apparentthat training and additional resourceswould be required to ensure theeffective monitoring of proposals. Toovercome this in Swindon, the codedesigner may be retained to ensurecompliance with the code, although thisis yet to be confirmed. In this case, thecomplexity of the code, its inflexibilityand lack of resources in the localauthority conspire to make such anapproach a necessity if the code is to bedelivered. As yet, however, no decisionhas been made.

7.3 Enforcement was also envisaged to be alocal authority function, operatingthrough normal processes of planningand highways adoption. However, lackof resources, for example in Newcastle,may dictate a minimal enforcementfunction, except where formalcomplaints are received. There,stakeholders also felt that considerableflexibility was likely to be used ininterpreting the code, not least becausethe level of prescription has fallen insuccessive drafts. Thus, as with theGreat Park site, councillors are likely tobe open to alternative solutions thatpromise greater speed and efficiency, or

which improve on those containedwithin the code. In Cirencester aparticular concern was voiced that futurealterations may gradually undermine thecode’s principles and should becontrolled. This concern is yet to befully considered.

7.4 Beyond normal planning processes,legal means were being considered tofacilitate monitoring and enforcementefforts. In Hastings, English Partnershipsand their landowner partner will be partof a joint venture with a developer andwill seek to control through thedevelopment agreement. The legalagreement between developmentpartners in Newcastle could be used in asimilar manner, both when assessingapplications, and during delivery toensure compliance. In Swindon, apreference exists for the code to fit in toa legal framework in order that it is seento be robust enough to accompany landsales and withstand third partychallenge, and be measurable andenforceable. Even there, however, thoseinvolved feel that the code is open tonegotiation. Other processes beingexplored included land covenants, andSection 106 agreements.

167

MANAGEOUTCOMES

Ch 7

7.5 In contrast to the pilots, the advancedcodes were in the main monitored bylandowners and their consultant teams,with enforcement via development/landsale agreements. At Fairford Leys, forexample, the code and masterplanprovided the basis for a legal agreementbetween the landowner andhousebuilders to ensure quality; theview being that through its preciseexpression the code is both measurableand enforceable as part of thedevelopment agreement, something thatalso helps to increase certainty. Thereare no plans to alter these arrangementswhich have been highly effective atdelivering compliance, with stakeholdersarguing that enforcement via planningpowers would inevitably be weaker. Inthis case the code designer has beenretained to make weekly site inspectionsand identify inconsistencies as they arisein order that they can be efficientlyrectified. In fact very few breaches havebeen recorded, but the ultimate sanctionremains in place that the landowner canwithhold the transfer of the title deed inthe event of a major breach. So far thelocal authority have played no role inenforcement.

7.6 Lightmoor, Newhall and Upton illustratevariations on this theme. In Lightmoor,

the code is used by the consortia tomonitor the final completed schemes ofparcel developers before signing overthe freehold to the developer. In theinterim, developers are granted a licenceto complete the development.Stakeholders stress that withholding thefreehold would be a last resort, but isnevertheless a powerful incentive tocomply. For their part, the localauthority have no dedicated system formonitoring compliance. At Newhall, thelandowner’s team also monitor andenforce compliance with the code. Theyaccept however that enforcement isdifficult and time-consuming, and unlessproblems are identified duringconstruction and before the sale of adwelling, then it is unlikely that a breachwill be enforced. At Upton, a siteinspector ensures compliance on behalfof English Partnerships, whilst thehighways adoption officer ensures thepublic realm is constructed as required.So far this has worked well, and nocases of non-compliance have occurred.A final sanction is held by EnglishPartnerships in their ability to retainfreehold until compliance has beencertified. This process is phased on thebasis of careful monitoring, withfreeholds transferred 5-10 units at a time.

7.7 The other case studies relied on thepublic sector to monitor and enforcedelivery. At West Silvertown, followingthe demise of the LDDC, enforcementpowers have reverted to the localauthority, but no instances of non-compliance ever arose and the codes arenow no longer in use. This may havemuch to do with the retention of thesame architect to design the code andcomplete the detailed design of allphases of the development. Monitoringand compliance at Hulme has beenundertaken primarily by the regenerationcompany acting as the gatekeepers ofthe code. This system ensured that therewere very few breaches of what hadbeen formally approved, not leastbecause the flexibility of the code andthe way it was implemented allowedvariations to be negotiated in advance.The use of the code has been waning inrecent years, although it is still used indevelopment control negotiations, andto date neither the code nor anydecisions stemming from its use havebeen challenged on appeal. At FairfieldPark there have been no breaches of thecode – so far – with differences ofopinion dealt with through negotiation,and the local authority taking an activerole in attempting to resist departures


168

from it. In the event of a breach, thenormal local authority enforcementprocesses will apply.

7.8 In each case, the presence of the codehas helped to ensure that breaches arekept to a minimum, if they occur at all,and although the codes monitored bythe public sector have tended to beimplemented with a greater degree offlexibility, the lack of any enforcement(or the need for any) was a characteristicof the coded schemes.

7.9 The non-code case studies tended to relyon local authority monitoring andenforcement, although with less overallsuccess. At Greenhithe, for example, thelocal authority is ultimately responsiblefor monitoring and enforcement, and iscurrently contemplating enforcementaction on the one parcel that was soldoff by the main developer. For their part,the main developer carefully checksevery reserved matters application fromtheir consultants to ensure compliance,and so far – with the exception of minorhighways matters – no enforcement hasbeen required. Currently the planningdepartment lacks resources for adequatemonitoring and they tend to rely on

officers from the highways authority tofeed back issues to the planningdepartment. The lack of resources in thepublic sector for these activities seemedto be the norm. In the case of PortMarine, for example, the local authorityis responsible for determining non-compliance in the normal manner, andafterwards for enforcement, but theyadmit that their staffing situation meansthat this work will be limited. The localauthority now regret not negotiating withthe developer to fund a complianceofficer.

7.10 At Newcastle Great Park, one parcel washanded to another housebuilder, but theoriginal developer has retained qualitycontrol. Final monitoring andenforcement is the responsibility of thelocal authority, although no specialprocesses are in place to ensure thishappens. Interviewees argue that inpractice the guidance is unlikely toprove effective as an enforcement toolas it is not sufficiently clear, although sofar non-compliance has been raisedinformally at the joint developer/Cityweekly meetings, and has been resolvedthrough negotiation.

169

MANAGEOUTCOMES

Ch 7


170

DESIGN CODE REFERENCEWhat the codes contained:Monitor and EnforceSix of the pilot cases stated that their codewould be applied through the usual localauthority development control processes(fig 7.1 Rotherham). Only Swindon made noexplicit mention of this, although the sameapproach was implied. In addition, atAldershot, like Upton, land ownershipenabled developer selection on the basis ofconformity with the code, and this wasexplicit in the code. This was also the caseat Newcastle, where compliance was also aprerequisite for Housing Market renewalfunding (the only financial incentivementioned in any pilot codes). To assist inmonitoring compliance, Swindon requireddesigners to complete a detailed compliancechecklist (fig 7.2 Swindon) and submit adesign statement. Cirencester’s draft codehad provided very detailed recommendationson the appointment of a Town Architect tointerpret and enforce compliance with thecode, including sections on items to besubmitted by applicants, and grounds forpermitting variances and amending the codeitself. All this was removed from the finalversion of the code.

Fig 7.1 Rotherham, flowchart of the approvals process

171

MANAGEOUTCOMES

Ch 7

Fig 7.2 Swindon, conformance checklist for developers


172

Three of the advanced codes also omitted discussion of implementation. InLightmoor, for example, both developer and landowner aspired to pass on theiraspirations to parcel developers, but the mechanics of this was not specified in thetext of the code. Upton’s code included a flow chart which suggested the code wouldfeed into the processes of planning permission and developer selection (fig 7.3Upton): the landowner was to make sites available to preferred bidders on the basisof their compliance with the code. At Greenwich, “The Design Code forms part of theVariation Agreement between the landlord and the developer to inform and direct thedeveloper”. At West Silvertown, normal planning enforcement was identified as themeans to ensure compliance, a model that Fairfield Park followed. Hulme stated thatthe City would not adopt “ill-defined” open spaces or those “without a function”.This provided a clear incentive for developers to comply with this specific designguideline, despite the code itself being largely advisory.

None of the four non-code cases mentioned monitoring procedures, but only onemade no mention of enforcement. Two of the others presumed normal approaches toplanning enforcement. Newcastle Great Park made passing mention to the possibilityof using restrictive covenants, but only in relation to ensuring the adaptability of off-street parking for use as garden space.

Fig 7.3 Upton, approvals process flowchart

173

MANAGEOUTCOMES

Ch 7

Evaluation and aftercareSUMMARY

Codes tend to evolve throughout their use, being either formally or informally evaluated and revised.

Codes require flexibility from code designers and regulators, both in how they interpret codes where conflicts become apparent, and in a willingness to update them in the light of early experience of their use.

Code principles should not be seen as set in stone, but, particularly on large long-term sites, capable – through due process – of informedreview.

Code supplements can avoid the need for complete review.

The potential for codes to manage developments following their completion is not being systematically considered.

Codes can have a role in the long-term management of developments, but this requires an appropriate process i.e. through planning, localmanagement companies, restrictions placed on inhabitants at the point of sale, or the provision of a post-completion design guide basedon the code.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

7.11 The questions of evaluation andaftercare had not been considered bymost of the pilot teams. In Newcastle,those involved with the code feel that itwill have an on-going role in themanagement of the developmentfollowing its completion through theauspices of a likely management trust orcompany, and through the localauthority utilising it internally for thelong-term design and management ofthe public realm. Only the Swindonteam had explicitly built provision forevaluation and review into themasterplan and code, with the firstreview planned for one year after itsimplementation. At that stage it isplanned that any changes to themasterplan will be formalised.

7.12 By contrast, only a minority of theadvanced codes (West Silvertown andFairfield Park) had not been reviewed atall since their original creation.Elsewhere, codes had tended to evolvein use, and had been either formally orinformally revised. In the case ofLightmoor, although no formalmechanism exists to review the code, ithas evolved with use, including recentlywith the addition of the Public RealmDesign Guide in order to better addresshighways adoption concerns. The

content of the Fairford Leys code hasalso evolved over time and a secondgeneration of documents is in theprocess of being produced, reflectingnew policy and market circumstances.

7.13 The changing national policy contextseemed to be a major motivating factorfor reviewing codes. A review of theGreenwich code is planned, forexample, in order to raise densitiesin the later phases of the development.At Newhall, the changing procurementpractices discussed above have led tochanging roles for the code, and also toits gradual evolution to reflect thechanging circumstances. However,Upton reflected perhaps the mostsystematic review process, undertaken inorder to correct areas where outcomeshave been problematic. Thus in thesecond addition, more detail was addedon a range of design issues including onthe design of courtyards. Theexperiences suggest that codes need notbe fixed in stone and that althoughpotentially time-consuming (as was thecase in Upton), codes can and perhapsshould be reviewed to reflect changingcontexts and lessons in use.

7.14 The role of codes in the ongoingmanagement and aftercare of the

projects they inspired was patchy. Insome, the code has had no role inongoing management, with nomechanisms in place to check futurechanges against the code. WestSilvertown and Fairfield Park fall intothis category. In the former, othermechanisms are used, with restrictionsbuilt into leases of occupiers (i.e. nosatellite dishes or sheds), whilst ownershave been provided with informationregarding rebuilding and replacingmaterials to match existing. The WestSilvertown Community Foundation hasalso been set up to look after thecommon areas such as the village green,playground and dock walkways.

7.15 Elsewhere the code is being used inmanagement. In Hulme, for example,the role of the regeneration companyhas been taken over by a HulmeManager based in the Chief Executive’sRegeneration Team with responsibilityfor monitoring compliance with the codeas well as for environmentalmanagement more generally. This hasensured a successful transition ofresponsibility. At Upton a managementcompany has now been set up withresponsibility for the open spaces andSUDS. It is also expected that thiscompany will have a role to safeguard


174

the code over the long-term. A differentapproach is being taken at Lightmoor,with a separate post completion designguide being prepared. This will useprinciples from the design code as wellas removing certain permitteddevelopment rights (i.e. conservatoriesand paving front gardens). Until it is inuse, the existing code is being used formanagement purposes. The experiencesdemonstrate that although codes canand do have a role in long-termmanagement, that role will also need asystem putting in place to deliver it overthe long-term. Alternatively, theprinciples in codes need interpreting ina manner that can be used for on-goingmanagement as opposed todevelopment purposes.

7.16 A management/after care role had notbeen built into the design guidance ofthe non-code case studies, although,with the exception of Port Marine –which was regarded as flexible enoughto accommodate change – all had beensubject to on-going review. AtCambourne the consortium holds anaspiration to raise density levelsfollowing national guidance givenin PPG3. As a result the developer hassubmitted a revised outline applicationand masterplan which has been rejected

by the local authority and is now thesubject of appeal. The masterplan andguidance have been informally updatedthrough the development controlprocess and phasing briefs, but somestakeholders believe a formal review isoverdue in order to address marketchanges.

7.17 The Greenhithe design guidance hasbeen able to evolve over time, forexample introducing higher densitiesreflecting changes to the wider policycontext. Planners believe, however, thatthis process has been rather ad hoc andthat specific timeframes should havebeen built into the process from the startto review the guidance. At Newcastle,the guidance has also been continuallyupdated, often in a confusing mannerwith the addition of new layers ofinformation, whilst the previousguidance still remains in force. Themasterplan will be formally revised inthe near future. The combinedexperiences suggest that on large long-term sites, regular review is required,unless guidance is flexible enough toaccommodate change in the first place.In the case of relatively in-flexibledesign codes, this would seem to bea necessity.

175

MANAGEOUTCOMES

Ch 7


176

8 Sustainable outcomesSustainable outcomes represent what the various inputs and processes are attempting to deliver. Outcomes can beunderstood in terms of speed, quality, certainty, co-ordination (of stakeholders), inclusion (of the community), andvalue (economic). The extent to which they are achieved is likely to determine whether coding as an approach issustainable, or not. The last three of these have already been dealt with above (see discussion of roles &relationships, engagement, and resources). The first three are dealt with here.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

177

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

Speed of deliverySUMMARY

The speed of initial code production depends on the range of stakeholders involved and their working relationships, and on the extent of existing design work(i.e. whether a masterplan is already in place).

Given the right circumstances, incentives and information, draft codes can be prepared in aslittle as two or three months, however, their refinement, agreement, and adoption can take much longer – up to two years.

Formal development control processes do not take longer for coded schemes, however, the periods running up to the outline planningconsent and subsequent (first) reserved matters application are typically very time consuming.

This is regarded by many stakeholders as nothing out of the ordinary, as all large sites today require detailed design guidance of one formor another, and the pursuit of better design, and securing consensus over detailed design – however achieved – takes time.

Large-scale developments such as those for which codes are typically prepared, are complex and their progress is dependent on a widerange of factors beyond the influence of the code. Indeed the choice of coding per se has little bearing on the length of the developmentor consents processes.

A wide range of bottlenecks occur at critical junctures, many tied to the failure to develop a convincing partnership approach or a strongvision from the start; these can quickly undermine the commitment to coding.

Possible streamlining processes include: professional project management, dedicated local authority personnel, multidisciplinary (inclusive)project teams, project champions, contracting out code preparation, fora for key decision-makers, and the use of delegated powers.

Most important is the need to involve high quality parcel designers to creatively interpret codes and produce designs which accord withthem without the need for significant time consuming negotiations.

Over time, the process of applying for and obtaining reserved matters consents becomes more efficient, it is also expected that increasedfamiliarity of teams with coding will increasingly streamline their preparation.

Other forms of design guidance showed similar costs and benefits, with significant up-front investment, offset by increasingly efficientprocessing of phases as developments commence.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

8.1 The question of coding speed ischaracterised by two experiences. First,that for some of the pilots, driven on bythe pilot programme deadlines, coding(at least up to a first draft form) can bea relatively quick process – 3 to 5months. These experiences establishedthat with all stakeholders pulling in thesame direction, much can be achieved.Elsewhere, often in the more advancedpilot projects, coding has been seen as atime consuming process, and by someas an unwelcome interruption toprogressing development. Moreover,even amongst those pilots that maderapid initial progress, all recognised thatthe time required for coding should notbe under-estimated and was more time-consuming than expected, not least inthe time required to refine the codefollowing the production of the firstdraft in order to get it in a state thatcould be agreed, used and adopted.

8.2 In Hastings, the time taken for codinghas meant that the first infrastructurecontract was approved and made it onto site prior to code adoption, althoughthe first planning application will beconsidered against the code. In Ashford,the perceived delays caused by codinghave led to disillusionment amongst thedevelopment consortium who were

initially enthusiastic. In reality, the delaysseem to be caused more by the decisionof the consortium to change the originalparcel designers of Phase 1b of thedevelopment, to re-masterplan thisphase and re-submit it for reservedmatters consent. The adoption of thecode has been significantly delayed as aresult of the changes, largely because ofthe need to revise the code itself toreflect the new masterplanningprinciples and because of the difficultiesencountered in trying to get the variousstakeholders to agree the content of thecode before it is put forward foradoption. The experience illustrates thatfinding consensus over detailed designconcerns can be very time consumingunless the process is built upon the solidfoundations of a strong partnership andan agreed vision.

8.3 Latterly with the appointment of newhigh quality designers, the process hasspeeded up, and both the developersand authority believe that reservedmatters applications will now proceed inan efficient manner, particularly byreducing the need for extensive pre-application negotiations. In this regardthe quality of the designer seems moreimportant in delivering an expediteddesign process than the presence of the

code, whilst all stakeholders agree thatthe statutory 13-week determinationperiod will dictate the length of theformal development control process,with or without the code. Nevertheless,the developer suggests that much tightertimetabling of the coding process wouldhave been beneficial, and confirmed thatthey are planning to sponsor a dedicatedlocal authority planner to act on theirbehalf during the development controlprocess – they are already sponsoring anurban designer in the local authority twodays a week.

8.4 Significantly, throughout the process ofcode design, the developers havecontinued to bring forward applicationsfor parts of the site for consideration. Inpart this reveals the lack of concern ofthe developer for the code (somethingimposed by, and produced for, the localauthority), but also that work can go onin tandem with the code, thus reducingthe scope for delay. Nevertheless, thecode itself reflects the local authority’saspirations to produce a higher qualitydevelopment on this site, and thesehigher aspirations indirectly led to thechange of parcel designers and to thesubsequent delays. The experienceillustrates that achieving a higher qualitydesign solution can take more time, but


178

that this is not necessarily related to thedecision to use a code – or not. The localauthority is also confident that if lessskilled parcel designers were used forsubsequent phases, then the code wouldhelp to reduce delays by setting out theiraspirations in a suitably robust manner.

8.5 In Rotherham, it is argued that deliveryof the code will rely on making non-compliance as difficult as possible. Thusapplicants will be forced into morelengthy negotiation and planningprocesses if they deviate from the code.It is as yet unclear exactly how this willpan out, but development controlofficers in the borough feel that codingrisks slowing their decision-makingprocesses down because some applicantsshow little desire to comply with it.

8.6 The extended timeframes of some of thepilot coding projects may be influencedby the lack of experience of many ofthose involved in design coding.Aldershot, for example, were on theirfifth draft of the code at the time of thefinal research evaluation, although therethe failure to agree the masterplan wassubstantially responsible for the delays.In Newcastle, the local authority resolvedto handle as much of the work aspossible in-house. Thus the design code

was prepared by the local authorityfollowing the completion of a masterplanby external consultants. Six months later,a charrette held on the proposalsrevealed significant weaknesses in thecode. An Enquiry by Design process re-worked aspects of the masterplan, andwas followed by the production of anArea Action Plan, which will inform therevision of the code.

8.7 This envisages a series of options andthe resolution of this following publicconsultation will determine how thecode develops. Such a learning processwas seen as invaluable for thoseinvolved and for the production of futurecoding projects, but has greatly extendedthe length of this project – approachingtwo years and counting (postmasterplan). It is possible to conclude,however, that much of the time spenthas been for reasons independent of thedecision to code the project, not least thestatutory processes required under thenew planning act to prepare and adoptarea action plans, and the departure ofthe council’s urban design officer duringthe course of the project. Nevertheless,those involved conclude that usingconsultants to produce the code wouldhave been far more efficient, and thatthe lack of management and leadership

or a dedicated team with specific timeallocated to prepare the code had beencritical. In the meantime, applicationshave been coming forward for parts thesite, and these have been slowed downas the authority tries to clarify its ownaspirations.

8.8 Streamlining of the coding project wasgenerally thought possible by carefultimetabling, use of consultants, usingprofessional project management, havingdedicated local authority personnel(particularly if preparing the code in-house), using multidisciplinary projectteams, and ensuring that key decision-makers regularly meet to push mattersforward. Key potential bottlenecks werevariously identified as:

Gathering contextual and backgroundinformation.Agreeing highways issues, particularlywhen an innovative approach is beingtaken and highways officers need togain consensus within their authoritygiven their safety remit and long termliability, which effectively requires thatthey balance innovation with caution.Slowness and inconsistency of localauthority comments/decision-making,sometimes caused by theunavailability of senior staff.

179

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

Slowness of developers in respondingto local authority comments.Checking conformity issues i.e. withplanning policy and highwaysstandards.Delay in Section 106 negotiations.Securing final agreement.Staff turnover, with key individualsleaving during the course of the codepreparation process.Slowness of consultation and adoptionprocesses.Requirements to produce parcel briefs(estimated at 3 months each).Having to re-visit masterplans toensure they provide a robust (andsuitably detailed) basis for coding.Poor communications.

8.9 Realistically, and without the pilotprocess operating, the view by somewas that detailed coding takes a year.Others felt that 6 months would berealistic, although approvals processescan delay matters considerably.

8.10 The advanced code stakeholders wereable to take a more informed view onthe question of speed, having beenthrough the entire planning process andonto site. Most concluded that althoughthe development control process neednot, and did not, take longer, the actual

process of preparing and agreeing acode was very time consuming, as werethe periods running up to the outlineplanning consent and subsequent (first)reserved matters application. However,this was regarded by many as nothingout of the ordinary, as all large sitestoday require detailed design guidanceof one form or another. Furthermore,over time, the process of applying forand obtaining reserved matters consentsbecame more efficient.

8.11 West Silvertown and Greenwich wereperhaps the exceptions whereinterviewees were in agreement that thecode preparation process had been veryefficient. In West Silvertown the codetook six months to prepare, streamlinedby the LDDC acting as instigator,landowner and planning authority, andby the absence of any real localcommunity. Even here a very longoutline and first reserved mattersconsent process followed (18 months),although, following trend, subsequentreserved matters applications sped up,facilitated by their consideration underdelegated authority. At Greenwich thecode was produced in a very short time– two months – but was based upontwo years of detailed masterplanningwork and an initial set of design

guidelines. Subsequently additional timewas needed from interested parties tosign the code off.

8.12 At Lightmoor, the agreement of the firstreserved matters application took a year,although this was due to the parceldevelopers failing to meet theexpectations of the joint venturepartnership, rather than because of anyintervention from the planning authority.So far the formal planning applicationshave taken the same length of time asother detailed planning applications of asimilar nature in the authority, with phaseone determined within 13 weeks. Thoseinvolved believe that coding will speedup the planning and constructionprocesses over the long run. At Newhallstakeholders are already seeing thebenefits of faster reserved mattersapplications resulting from prioragreement of the code principles. So farthey have taken less than eight weeksand are quicker than normal, although thetotal development time has been slowerthan normal. Thus the developer of thethird parcel noted that it took 16 monthsto the first completion as compared with6-8 months for other developments.

8.13 For Upton, design code production took ayear, with a further two to three months


180

for the preparation of each parcel brief,and developer selection running at fourmonths. Nevertheless, the first phase wasdetermined in less than 13 weeks, and thesecond in under eight weeks; althoughthese timescales do not include theextensive pre-application negotiations orthe internal sign-off processes withinEnglish Partnerships. Those involved feelthat the overall process will be fasterdespite the hold ups at the start. FairfieldPark and Fairford Leys demonstrate similarpatterns. The code and masterplan atFairfield Park took 15 months fordocument preparation and ratification bythe local authority through the grant ofoutline permission, but reserved mattersare now being approved more efficiently.At Fairford Leys the initial process ofproducing the masterplan and codes tooktwo years but paved the way for fasterapprovals of reserved matters applications,at least for code compliant schemes.

8.14 A number of critical bottlenecks wereidentified by the advanced case studies,including:

The time taken to educate prospectivedevelopers about the detail required.Longer tender processes as developerteams need to satisfy a more detailedspecification.

Negotiation with highways engineers.A lack of clear communicationsbetween developers and other parties.The general length of the planningprocess, irrespective of coding.The time taken (with or withoutcodes) to prepare a complex and highquality design solution and get itagreed by all stakeholders.

8.15 A number of pointers were alsosuggested by these case studies who hadfound means to streamline theremaining/latter stages of their respectivedevelopments:

Ensure that the same people shouldattend all meetings.Provide a single informed point ofcontact for the developer i.e. a leadarchitect.Take time to formally agree street andpublic realm design guidelines withthe highways authority at the start ofthe process to avoid successivedevelopers repeating the samediscussions.Carry on designing whilst developingthe code, i.e. a two way process wasused at Hulme with the codeinforming early housing design andbeing informed in turn by it.

Resolve problems and inconsistenciesbefore the statutory planning processbegins.Use a dedicated sub-committee whereapplications need political consent.Make as many decisions as possibleunder delegated authority.Developers can fund a dedicatedplanning officer to streamline matters.

8.16 All interviewees reported that over time,as experience builds, things tend tospeed up anyway with or without thecode.

8.17 In the non-code case studies, theexperiences were mixed. At Greenhitheand Port Marine, the experience ofpreparing detailed design guidance hadsped up the processing of subsequentapplications. At Greenhithe, for example,the period from submitting an outlinepermission to signing of the Section 106and submitting the first reserved mattersapplication took two years, with theSection 106 substantially delaying theproject. Nevertheless all parties weregenerally happy with the length of theprocess and felt it was not out of theordinary. The local authority increasinglyused delegated powers to streamline theprocess as it commenced andinterviewees feel that the guidance

181

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

helped to speed up the pre-applicationdiscussions for the subsequent reservedmatters applications, as negotiationscould focus in on the detail, withouthaving to review strategic decisions eachtime. Over the whole process, theyargue, the guidance has saved time, andthe investment at the front, wouldanyway have been required in one formor another for a development of thissize. At Port Marine it took 12 monthsfor the preparation of the local authoritySPG and 12 months for the detailedmasterplan, followed by eight weeks foreach of the 18 reserved mattersapplications for each phase. The processhas been subject to continualrefinement.

8.18 At Cambourne, by contrast, themasterplan and design guide took justsix months to prepare during which timefortnightly meetings were held.However, development control wassubsequently slow, and those involvedargue that reserved matters applicationsdo not seem to have been sped up bythe presence of the guidance. On theNewcastle Great Park development, thesuccession of different types of guidancedelayed and complicated matters. Therange of initial guidance (brief,masterplan and design guide) took two

and a half years to prepare and agree,although the detailed masterplan for oneof the cells took just six months prior toconsultation and adoption (which isexpected to take a further six months).The changing approach resulted fromthe changing national policy context ondesign, political structures andpersonalities locally, and the complexityand scale of the project. Those involvedbelieve that in this case a detaileddesign code produced at the start wouldhave saved time by giving the schemethe certainty and direction it needed,leading to less interpretation and a moreconsistent approach on design. Here, theprocessing of planning applicationsgenerally takes longer than average,although stakeholders contend that thisis only to be expected given the natureof the site.

8.19 At Newcastle the bottlenecks weretypical of those affecting many largehousing developments and are notnecessarily linked to the choice ofdesign guidance. Nevertheless theymight have been addressed though thetype of detailed negotiations andagreements up-front that the advancedcoding projects seemed to benefit from.They included:

Differences in expectations betweenstakeholders – developer, planning,highways and councillors.The lack of co-ordination of planningand highways adoption processes.Lengthy committee approvalsprocesses and the degree of publicscrutiny.Poor communications betweendeveloper and authority and betweenspecialist officers in the localauthority.Lack of information from thedeveloper.Lack of guidance on informationrequirements from the developer.

8.20 Pointers suggested by those involved inthe non-coded schemes might equallyapply to the coded projects. Theseencompassed the need for greater front-loading of the design process to easethe path and save resources over thelong-term, and for regular senior levelmeetings on large scale projects to bringdecision-makers together. Involvinghighways adoption officers as early aspossible to avoid delays and abortivework was strongly advocated, as was thefunding of urban design consultants bythe developer to help authoritiesadminister design guidance during thedetermination of reserved matters.


182

183

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

QualitySUMMARY

Designs of very different quality can still be produced using the same code, emphasising thecritical importance of other factors as well – the quality of the designer, the determinationand resources of those charged with implementing the code, and the aspirations and abilityof the developer.

Overwhelmingly, where codes had been used through to fruition on site they received a strong endorsement from those who had beeninvolved. Typically, it seems, coded schemes help to set new quality benchmarks in the locations where they are used, and act as flagshipdevelopments for the developers who are involved.

Codes are having a beneficial effect in helping to deliver a more coherent public realm, resisting inappropriate development, generallyraising the importance and profile of design, and in encouraging the appointment of better quality designers than would otherwise be thecase.

Codes can help to deliver quality contemporary as well as quality traditional architectural solutions.

If highways authorities are responsive to their potential, codes can also help to overcome undesirable roads-dominated highways solutionsby questioning standard approaches to the design of the public realm.

They provide a valuable delivery tool for the physical vision that they support and a means to deliver consistent quality thresholds acrosslarge-scale developments that involve different developer and design teams.

No single model for design codes exists, and given the right context, a range of approaches along a prescription/flexibility continuum seemcapable of delivering quality.

Other detailed design guidance tools can also help to deliver design quality, and for many of the same reasons; the ability to establisha vision and use design guidance to co-ordinate resources, processes, actors and aspirations to deliver it.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

8.21 Most interviewees felt that it was far tooearly to postulate on the quality ofoutcomes that would be associated withthe coded schemes, and many arguedthat a pre-requisite of good design wasthe involvement of good designers atevery stage of the development of ascheme, although codes could help todeliver a greater coherence and sense ofcharacter across large sites wheremultiple developers were involved.

8.22 In a few cases, the codes were alreadyhaving a measurable effect. InNewcastle, despite the code still being inpreparation as the monitoring andevaluation concluded, early schemes forthe site prepared independently of thecoding exercise have since beenamended to reflect the emerging codingprinciples, including a more coherentpublic realm.

8.23 At Rotherham, the landowner/developerhas been disappointed with the code.His engagement with the process waspredicated on a belief that it would oilthe wheels of the planning process.However, his proposal for large formatsupermarket on part of the site haseffectively been made more difficult bythe code which codes instead for anetwork of streets and spaces and a mix

of uses, and not for a car dominatedintrospective retail shed. The plannersare pleased that the code is helpingthem resist such development, and arguethat a masterplan in isolation would beless effective at delivering such anoutcome.

8.24 Although in Ashford the quality ofphases inspired by the code is yet to beseen, the authority are content that theexperience has been a good one, byraising the importance of the designagenda in the minds of consortiummembers, and by forcing better parceldesigners to be appointed. For them, thevalue has been in forcing discussionsabout design early on in the process.They accept that if high qualitydesigners are involved then there is lessneed for a code, and conversely thatcodes are no substitute for poordesigners. Nevertheless, as mostdesigners are somewhere in between,codes can play an important part inhelping to deliver better outcomes.

8.25 On the question of quality,overwhelmingly the advanced codesreceived a strong endorsement. Thisranged from schemes such as Lightmoor,where construction has not yet begun,but where interviewees are optimistic

that high quality will be secured,underpinned by an ‘excellent’ eco-homes rating; to West Silvertown (fig8.1), which is completed on site andwhere general agreement was that thecode (and masterplan) had brought onlybenefits. Indeed in this case a largevolume housebuilder had been requiredto totally rethink their approach todesign, in the process significantlyraising their game.

8.26 At Upton (fig 8.2), those involved arepleased with the outcomes and feel thatquality and sustainability is improvingfrom phase to phase; in part because ofthe high quality infrastructure providedby English Partnerships, and theirwillingness to sacrifice land value forquality (at least in the short-term). Thecase demonstrates that even with theirrelative prescription, individual codesare capable of delivering a range of verydifferent design solutions. In this caseproposals submitted for tender duringthe first phase varied considerably. Thismight suggest that the codes allowed fordesirable interpretation and innovation.Alternatively, it may be too flexible orsimply unclear. The process of revisionattempted to clarify the guidance in thesecond edition.


184

185

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

Fig 8.1 West Silvertown

Fig 8.2 Upton

8.27 The Newhall code (fig 8.3) demonstratedthat codes are effective at deliveringcontemporary architectural solutionswith a distinct sense of place.Nevertheless, despite widespreadsatisfaction over the quality being

delivered, the continued evolution of thedeveloper procurement processillustrates a desire to do better, and inparticular to address the issue of varyingworkmanship between the phases.Greenwich (fig 8.4) has also been

successfully delivering contemporaryarchitecture. There the ‘private’ code hasbeen effective in ensuring that themasterplan principles are translated intothe design of each phase ofdevelopment, despite the use of a rangeof different architects.

8.28 For their part, Fairfield Park (fig 8.5) andFairford Leys (fig 8.6) demonstrate thatcodes can equally deliver high quality‘traditional’ development. Thoseinvolved at Fairfield Park believe thedevelopment has set some new qualitybenchmarks. The local authority nowuse the scheme as a benchmark fornegotiations on other developments,whilst the developers involved are usingtheir parcels as flagship projects in theirmarketing. The codes have also led to asteep change in the approach adoptedby the Highways Authority with positiveeffects on other sites in the area. AtFairford Leys a consensus exists that thecodes have led to a much higher qualityof development than would have beenachieved without them – conforming toa high degree with the initial vision andincorporating a mix of uses contrary tothe expectations of conventionalproperty advisors.


186

Fig 8.3 Newhall

Fig 8.4 Greenwich Millennium Village

8.29 The experience at Fairford Leysillustrates how a very prescriptive codecan help to deliver a very particularvision. At the other end of the scale,complete ceensus existed amongst thoseinvolved in Hulme (fig 8.7) that the code

has been hugely significant in achievinga remarkable and desirabletransformation in Hulme; particularly inthe quality of the public realm, if notalways in the housing. The success ofthis very flexible and far more generic

code has led in turn to the productionof other design guidance for Manchesterand for the Guinness Trust and NorthBritish Housing Association (NBHA)seeking to improve the quality of theirown developments nationally. The twoexamples illustrate how no single modelfor design codes exists and that giventhe right circumstances, a range ofapproaches along a prescription/flexibility continuum may equally becapable of delivering quality.

8.30 The advanced codes suggested a rangeof possible advantages of coding as ameans to deliver design quality; codes:

Provide a delivery tool for themasterplanning vision.Give a reassurance of quality inschemes that develop incrementallyover time.Allow visualisation of key elements(important for decision-makers).Give a degree of standardisationwhich delivers economies of scale.Provide a good marketing tool for thedeveloper.Set a benchmark for the quality offuture developments. Provide a consistent level of qualityacross different parcel designers anddevelopers.

187

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

Fig 8.5 Fairfield Park

Fig 8.6 Fairford Leys

Can reduce the competition betweendevelopers for their schemes to standout, and lead instead to moreharmonious development.

Can provide economies of scale forparticular specialist aspects ofschemes i.e. stonework.Can have an educational purposei.e. of highways engineers.

8.31 However, the non-code examples alsoillustrated that other tools can equallyhelp to deliver design quality, and formany of the same reasons, namely theability to establish a vision (more or lessdetailed) then use design guidance as ameans to co-ordinate resources,processes, actors and aspirations towardsachieving that goal.

8.32 At Port Marine (fig 8.8), the guidancehas been able to increase the designquality delivered across the range ofdifferent developers involved, forexample by co-ordinating density, landuses, bulk and massing across the site.There the quality of the masterplanhelped to sell the vision, whilst therange of design awards received testifiesto that quality. Greenhithe (fig 8.9) alsoboasts its fair share of awards, and allstakeholders believe the guidance hasbeen successful in helping to deliver thevision. The developers, for example,believe the development has a strongsense of place, that it has maximisedvalue for them, and delivered a greaterconsistency of design quality across thesite. At Cambourne (fig 8.10), bycontrast, some concern exists that theseparate proposals coming forwardunder the guidance are too variable, andtheir quality depends on the extent to


188

Fig 8.7 Hulme

Fig 8.8 Port Marine

which different developers buy into thevision. Some argue that the inconsistentinterpretation of the guidance by thelocal authority has undermined thequality of the final development, withpermissions being granted when they

should not be. This, however, is setwithin a wider context where allstakeholders agree that overall theguidance has greatly raised the qualityof development over what otherwisewould have been built on the site.

189

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

Fig 8.9 Greenhithe

Fig 8.10 Cambourne

8.33 To date, the Newcastle Great Park(fig 8.11) example provides perhaps theleast successful development in terms ofits quality. There, the elongated andcomplex process has delivered highquality infrastructure and open spacesand a satisfactory form and layout,although it has so far failed to deliver onthe original vision for quality as regardsthe detailed design of dwellings. Yetoptimism remains high that the qualitywill improve as stakeholders learn fromthe experiences of the first phases, andas new guidance is produced with agreater clarity and unifying vision.


190

Fig 8.11 Newcastle Great Park

191

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

CertaintySUMMARY

Coding can help to guarantee that a set level of quality will be delivered across the differentphases of a development, safeguarding the investments of developers and purchasers alike.

When used across large sites, codes assist developers to cost units (and therebydevelopments) with more certainty by introducing a degree of standardisation.

Codes provide certainty for developers applying for reserved matters permissions, as long as their schemes are code compliant.

For non-compliant schemes the opposite is true.

Codes allow the selection of development partners with greater certainty that aspirations will be compatible, and that necessarynegotiations will be smooth.

Detailed design guidance of all types seems suited to deliver greater certainty, in so doing allowing developers to plan ahead in an efficientmanner to deliver a coherent vision.

Significant uncertainty exists, however, around the very concept of coding itself, and when design guidance is or is not coding – in wholeor in part.

Coding need not necessarily be considered as distinct and separate from other types of design guidance, but instead as a detailed form ofprescription that complements and sits alongside or as part of other forms of design prescription.

The analysis points to a simple definition of design codes to distinguish them from other guidance: A design code is an illustratedcompendium of the necessary and optional design components of a particular development with instructions and advise about how theserelate together in order to deliver a masterplan or other site-based vision.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

CO-ORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

8.34 The final outcome dealt with here iscertainty, which to some degree is areflection of the ability of guidance todeliver on speed and quality. Again,those involved in the pilot projects feltthat the jury was still out with regard towhether design codes increased thecertainty of the process. Nevertheless,the experience of producing the codehad convinced the landowner atHastings that codes had value in givinggreater certainty during the selection oftheir development partner, and woulddeliver a greater consistency acrossparcel boundaries. By contrast, atNewcastle, the developers fear that atthe start of what is projected to be a 10-15 year project, the code has led togreater uncertainty as it has been inpreparation during a period whenproposals were already being submittedfor consent. Nevertheless, across thepilots, most concluded that in time thepresence of the codes would makenegotiations smoother and more certainsimply by virtue of the fact that codesare more prescriptive than most otherforms of guidance, and are therefore (intheory) less open to interpretation.

8.35 A significant uncertainty still focused,however, around when is a code a code,and when is it not, with elements of

coding often found as part of othertypes of design guidance (and vice-a-versa). As a consequence, theconceptual break between what is acode and what is not remains difficult tomake, the implication being that codingneed not necessarily be considered asdistinct and separate from other types ofdesign guidance, but simply as adetailed form of prescription thatcomplements and sits alongside or aspart of other forms of designprescription.

8.36 With regard to certainty, most of theadvanced coding schemes helped todeliver a more certain design anddevelopment process. At WestSilvertown, for example, a strong beliefwas expressed that coding deliversquality for the local authority, speed forthe developer, and certainty for both –in part by setting the ground rules forlater phases of the development tofollow. In this respect it also helped toreassure the initial occupiers that futurephases of the scheme were to be of anequally high quality as the early phases.A view was also expressed that becausecodes favoured conformity instead ofvariety, when used across large sitesthey should be particularly attractive tothe large national housebuilders. For

them, the standard unit is the basicmeasurement of delivery, and the meansby which developments can be costedwith certainly.

8.37 At Fairfield Park the case was made thatcodes are particularly valuable forproviding certainty during the reservedmatters approval process, whilst atUpton, it was argued that codes canprovide certainty for developers, butonly as long as their proposals are codecompliant. For non-compliant schemesthe exact opposite is true. Here, andelsewhere, the case was also made thatcodes provide certainly for communitiesthrough establishing a means to controlthe long-term vision. On a related note,at Farifield Leys, the argument was madethat developers are offered a highdegree of certainty that code compliantschemes would be approved, butequally that adjacent schemes by otherdevelopers would maintain the level ofquality, and not undermine theirinvestment. Only at Lightmoor weresome reservations expressed. There itwas argued that codes provide greatercertainty primarily by being moreprescriptive, but only with the dangerthat the flexibility that may be requiredto deliver enhanced quality on occasionswill be denied.


192

8.38 For their part the non-code case studiesalso seemed able to deliver certainty.At Greenhithe, for example, the designguidance increased the certainty of theapprovals process for the developer,whilst at Port Marine it was argued thatthe guidance was particularly importantin allowing the developer to plan aheadin an efficient manner to deliver acoherent vision. Greater flexibility was afeature of some of the non-codes, withthe danger that designs of lesser qualitywere sometimes able to slip through(Cambourne and Newcastle Great Park).In this respect the non-codes echoed theexperience of the coded projects, and inparticular that of Hulme.

193

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

Chapter 8

Each case study is briefly introducedbelow, starting with the pilots:

Aldershot Urban Extension – is adevelopment of 4,500 dwellings on a 137.5hectare site to be released by the Ministry ofDefence for development and owned byDefence Estates. An early draft code wasproduced early in 2005 and discussed withdevelopers. A fifth draft was produced inSeptember 2005. During this time the mainfocus has been on developing the masterplanwith a view to submitting an outline planningapplication in early 2006. It is not clearwhether a code will be submitted with theoutline application, or will follow later. Fiveinterviews were undertaken at the start of themonitoring and evaluation with keystakeholders, including with the landowner,consultant urban designer, local authorityplanner, representative from EnglishPartnerships and with the county highwaysauthority. These interviews were repeatedtowards the end of the process.

Ashford Barracks – is a development of 1,300dwellings on a 48.6 hectare site owned by

Wimpey Homes and Westbury Homes. Thecode was developed using stakeholderworkshops, following the preparation of adevelopment brief and schematic masterplanprepared using Enquiry by Designworkshops. At the time of the retrospectiveinterviews the code was being updatedfollowing evolutionary changes to themasterplan, and the code was still notadopted. Eighteen interviews in total wereundertaken with representatives of thedevelopment consortium (the two developersand project manager), the code designers,the project architects and landscapearchitects, the local authority (with urbandesign, development control, anddevelopment engineeing officers, and with acouncillor), highways authority and CABEenabler. Towards the end of the monitoringand evaluation process, six key stakeholderswere re-interviewed from across the differentstakeholder groups.

Cirencester Kingshill South – is adevelopment of between 260 and 340dwellings on a site of 8.7 hectares ownedjointly by Berkeley Community Villages and

Cotswold District Council. A final versionof the design code was presented at theCotswold Committee Member meeting inFebruary 2005. Committee members decidedthat it was not appropriate to adopt thedesign code in its current format. Unusually,the code has been prepared prior to theformal allocation of the site to which itrelates. It would appear that this is one ofthe reasons why the Code has not beenformally adopted by Cotswold DistrictCouncil. Four interviews were undertaken atthe start of the monitoring and evaluation:developer, county highways authority,planning authority and urban designconsultants, who were/are responsible forproducing the code and masterplan. Theinterviews were repeated at the end of theprocess, apart from the highways authority,who had had no further involvement sincethe initial interview.

Hastings Ore Valley – is a development of700 dwellings on three sites amounting to 67hectares constituting the Hastings MillenniumCommunity, and owned by a variety ofmainly public bodies. The code was formally


194

Annex A: the case studies

adopted for Development Control purposeson 29 April 2005. This follows planningpermission already being granted for siteinfrastructure. By the end of the monitoringand evaluation period, a first planningapplication had been submitted forevaluation against the code. Early in theprocess six interviews were undertaken withrepresentatives of the consultant urbandesigners, public landowner representatives,planning authority, highways authority andwith a community representative on the localregeneration partnership. These interviewswere repeated as the end of the monitoringand evaluation, although with a councillorsubstituting for the community representative.

Newcastle Walker Riverside – is adevelopment of 2,500 (net gain) dwellings ona 5km2 site, owned by Newcastle City Council,and focusing on revitalising an existingcommunity. At the time of the baselineinterviews the draft code was underpreparation, with a first draft completed in thespring of 2005, but was subsequentlyhampered by statutory consultation on therevised masterplan. It is hoped to finalise thecode in the spring of 2006, but in themeantime construction of phase one hasbegun on site, and two more applications arein the pipeline. Nine interviews wereconducted with fourteen representatives of themain partners: city councillors and officers

(regeneration, highways, urban design,development control, landscape design), andthe developers (regeneration consortium andparcel developers). The interviews wererepeated at the end of the process.

Rotherham Town Centre River Corridor – is amixed use development including 600dwellings on a 12 hectare site owned bySatnam Developments and a complex arrayof other private owners. The code has beenformally approved and become an InterimPlanning Statement in October 2005. It willeventually become a Supplementary PlanningDocument. In the early stages of the projectsix interviews were undertaken withrepresentatives of the local planningauthority, highways authority, regenerationand funding agency, developer andlandowner, and with the CABE enabler.These were repeated at the end ofmonitoring and evaluation exercise.

Swindon Southern Development Area – is adevelopment of 4,500 dwellings on a 309hectare site owned by Swindon BoroughCouncil and Bryant Homes. The code itselffollows a masterplan and outline planningconsent with a planning condition requiring acode. Final revisions were being made to thecode (fourth draft) at the time ofretrospective interviews following discussionswith planning officers and councillors, and

prior to formal submission to the planningauthority for approval. Six interviews wereundertaken with representatives of thedeveloper and consultant urban designers,and with representatives of the localauthority in their separate landowner,planning authority, highways authority andcouncillor guises. These same intervieweeswere interviewed again at the retrospectivestage, and this was supplemented by aninterview with the now Major Projects TeamLeader at the local planning authority.

The advanced case studies were as follows:

Fairfield Park (Mid Beds) – is a developmentof 800 new homes in the 27.7 hectaregrounds of a listed Victorian hospital buildingin Letchworth, owned by a consortium ofdevelopers. The masterplan and design codeswere produced in partnership between thelocal planning authority and the developerconsortium’s team to satisfy a planningcondition and clause in the Section 106agreement. This case study initially formedpart of the stocktake research (see Annex B).Three ‘expert papers’ were commissionedfrom representatives of the local planningauthority (design and conservation anddevelopment control), the developer’splanning consultant, and the architect for themaster developer and individual parcels.

195

ANNEX A: THE CASE STUDIES

A representative of the master developer wasalso involved via a stakeholder workshop.

Fairford Leys – is an urban extension toAylesbury of 1900 dwellings, with a mixed usetown centre on a site of 200 hectares promotedby the landowner, a private trust. Following thegrant of outline planning consent, a masterplanand design codes were produced in 1992. Thedevelopment is largely code compliant and isnow over 75% complete. This case studyinitially formed part of the stocktake research.Three ‘expert papers’ were commissioned, fromrepresentatives of the consultant urban designer,the master developer consortium, and the localauthority development control officer.

Greenwich Millennium Village – is adevelopment of over 1400 dwellings on a30.9 hectare site owned and promoted byEnglish Partnerships as the first MillenniumCommunity. Following amasterplanning/developer competition themasterplanners designed the fist phase ofdevelopment. A code was prepared for theremainder of the development to ensure thatthe masterplan vision was realised as otherarchitects and consultants became involved inthe development process. This case studyinitially formed part of the stocktake research.Three ‘expert papers’ were commissioned,from representatives of the landowner, thedeveloper and parcel architect.

Hulme – is a redevelopment of the 100hectare 1960’s Hulme estate on the edge ofManchester City Centre. The land was ownedby Manchester City Council who, through CityChallenge, aimed to regenerate the area via apublic/private joint venture. The code, TheHulme Guide, was formulated through anintensive consultation process and was usedto control the quality of development throughthe procurement and planning processs. Thiscase study initially formed part of thestocktake research. Three ‘expert papers’were commissioned, from representatives ofthe partnership, a housing associationdeveloper and the local planning authority.

Lightmoor – in Telford is a development of800 dwellings on a 71.8 hectare site ownedby English Partnerships and the BournvilleVillage Trust. The new community is beingdeveloped jointly as a type of secondBournville. The code was written in 2003 andwas included in the outline planningapplication. The first phase for 40 units hasrecently started construction. Nine interviewswere undertaken with the representativesfrom the landowners/developers, the codedesigners, the parcel developers, the parceldesigners, the local authority (Head ofPlanning and development control officers)and the highways authority.

Newhall – is a development of 440 dwellingson a site of 17.4 hectares in Harlow, and thefirst phase of a proposed newneighbourhood of 2800 homes, promoted bythe private landowner. The first phasedevelopment has outline planning consentand a code was prepared as part of thedeveloper brief for the first two parcels ofland to be marketed in 1999 and 2000. Thiscase study initially formed part of thestocktake research. Three ‘expert papers’were commissioned, from representatives ofthe landowner, planning authority and aparcel developer. The urban designconsultant was also involved via astakeholder workshop.

Upton – in Northampton is a mixed useurban extension of 1020 residential units, aschool and a number of shops. The land isowned by English Partnerships, who are alsoacting as master developer and who areproviding the main infrastructure and thesustainable urban drainage (SUDs) system.Upton is developed on a phase by phasebasis and the first phase is almost completeand dwellings are currently being marketed.Recently the Design Code has been revisedto improve its clarity and practicality. Ninepeople have been interviewed, some twice atdifferent stages of the project. Intervieweesincluded representatives of developers,landowner, local authority and consultants.


196

West Silvertown – is a residential-led, mixed-use development on 14 hectares ofbrownfield land within the London RoyalDocks. The development consists of 1,000units (780 for sale) with support facilities andnew infrastructure: retail, school, communitycentre, a ‘village green’ and new road anddrainage systems. Bids for the site’sregeneration were invited in 1994 and thenine phases of development took placebetween 1996 and 2004. The LondonDocklands Development Corporation (LDDC)was the major landowner and initially theplanning authority, and provided the maininfrastructure. Six interviews were conductedwith the project managers for the two maindevelopers (Wimpeys and Peabody Trust), thechief executive of the LDDC, planning andhighways officers of the London Borough ofNewham and a partner in Tibbalds Monro,code designers and master planners.

The non-code studies were:

Cambourne – in South Cambridgeshire is agreenfield development of 3300 dwellings,with a mixed use settlement centre, includingtwo schools, a supermarket, library, doctorsurgery and a business centre. The total siteis 322 hectares and owned by a developerconsortium. Following a condition on theOutline Planning Approval a masterplan and

design guides were produced in 1995 and aHighway Guide in 1999. The development is75% complete. A revised Outline PlanningApplication which sought to increase thedensity of the outstanding development hasbeen refused. Eight interviews wereundertaken, with representatives of the Localand County Authorities, the developerconsortium and the team who prepared themasterplan and guidance.

Greenhithe – in Kent is a development of1,200 dwellings on a 70 acre site owned byCrest Nicholson. The detailed designguidance was designed using a character areaapproach. The development is now over 75%complete, with almost half the unitsoccupied. The development also includes arestored grade II listed building, now usedfor offices, and a heritage trail of listedstructures set in parkland. It is hoped thefinal phase that includes a primary schooland a mixed use centre, will follow soon.Six interviews were undertaken with therepresentatives from the landowners/developers, the code designers, the parceldesigner, landscape architects, the localauthority and the highways authority.

Newcastle Great Park – is a project for amixed development on a greenfield site onthe edge of Newcastle, consisting of 80hectares of business park and 2,500

residential units with support facilities: retail,leisure, school and a hotel serving the wholedevelopment. The project also provides fornew road and drainage systems and publicopen space (country park). The housingstarted on site towards the end of 2001 andis expected to take 10-years to complete. Awide range of design guidance of differenttypes has been produced. Seven interviewswere conducted with 11 individualsrepresenting both the developerconsortium/landowner, including the projectmanager and master planner and NewcastleCity Council, the Head of Planning &Transportation, Head of Urban Design,Project Co-ordinator, and officers fromhighways, development control andpolicy/major projects implementation

Port Marine – in Portishead is a developmentof approximately 800 units on a 21.4 hectaressite owned by Crest Nicholson. The detailedmasterplan was prepared as part of theSection 106 agreement attached to the outlinepermission for the site and was approved in1999. The scheme is nearing completion withthe majority of the dwellings having beencompleted. Five interviews were conductedwith the key stakeholders involved in thedevelopment process, including: currentdeveloper, ex developer, Highways Authority,urban design consultant and urban designadvisor to the local planning authority.

197

ANNEX A: THE CASE STUDIES

The pilot programmeThe urban design coding pilot programmestarted in May 2004. The programme wasmanaged by CABE Enabling on behalf ofODPM, and involved:

Selecting and signing-up seven pilotcoding projects Commissioning a stocktake review ofexisting practice in the UK and overseasincorporating a literature review, nationalsurvey and an initial set of case studies(published by CABE in 2005 as ‘DesignCoding, Testing its use in England’)Establishing an advisory panel andnetwork of enablers to work with thedesign code pilotsDeveloping an advisory WorkingMethodology for the pilots to follow and atimetableWorking through CABE’s speciallycommissioned network of Code Enablersto progress the pilot codes.

Over the twenty months that followed, theintention was to take the selected pilotcoding projects as far as possible through thedifferent stages of the design coding process.

An independentevaluationSeparate to the enabling activities, UCL’sBartlett School of Planning and TibbaldsPlanning & Urban Design werecommissioned by ODPM to undertake anindependent monitoring and evaluation ofthe initiative – reported here. This evaluationincluded the seven pilots, but extendsbeyond them to include twelve other casestudies outside the pilot programme.

The additional case studies were of twotypes – ‘advanced’ and ‘non-code’ (seeAnnex A for the full list). The nineteen casestudies can therefore be distinguished asfollows:

Seven ‘Pilot’ projects, which on theconclusion of the monitoring andevaluation had reached various stages intheir evolution, but in large part had notyet began to be used in the regulation ordetailed design of development phases onsite.

Eight ‘Advanced’ studies, where the codehas been completed and the project isbeing, or has been, built-out. Theseinclude five advanced projects that werepartially evaluated during the stocktakereview, and which were revisited andrevaluated for this study. The stocktakereview was undertaken by the sameresearch team.Four ‘Non-code’ studies, which do not usedesign coding, but which use other formsof detailed design guidance, and whichtherefore provide valuable comparisons.These tools had all been used on site todeliver projects in various stages ofcompletion.


198

Annex B: the methodology

The evaluationmethodology

The monitoring and evaluation process wasstructured utilising a common methodologyfor all of the case studies. A series ofresearch tools were devised to evaluate thecase studies utilising the analytical frameworkas a basis (see Chapter 1). Six types ofmonitoring and evaluation were undertaken,although in the case of the Advanced andNon-code studies, stages ‘b’ and ‘e’ wererolled into one:

a. Contextual information – gatheringbackground contextual information oneach of the case studies to establish theeconomic, social, environmental andpolitical contexts for the developments.

INPUTS

DECISIONTO CODE

COORDINATEINPUTS

UNDERSTANDCONTEXT

CODEDESIGN

CODEDELIVERY

MANAGEOUTCOMES

SUSTAINABLEOUTCOMES

PROCESSES


ROLES&

RELATIONSHIPS

POLICY&

GUIDANCE

CONTENT&

EXPRESSION

DESIGN&

DEVELOPMENT

MONITOR&

ENFORCE

SKILLS&

RESOURCES

SITE&

VISION

ENGAGEMENT&

ADOPTION

ASSESSMENT&

REGULATION

EVALUATION&

AFTERCARE

b. Baseline interviews – systematicinterviewing of all key stakeholdersinvolved in the projects as a means toestablish a baseline set of aspirations for,and approaches to, coding.

c. ‘Fly on the wall’ monitoring – attendanceat key events and meetings throughout thelife of the pilot projects and feedingdiscussion and outputs into the analysis.

d. Content analysis – systematic analysis ofthe content of all key outputs from thecase studies, including the codesthemselves against a structured pro-forma.The code documents varied in lengthbetween approximately 25 to 100 pages,with most of the pilot codes taking thelonger variety.

e. Retrospective interviews – looking back atthe coding processes towards the end ofthe research project through a further andfinal comprehensive round of interviewswith key stakeholders. For the fiveadvanced case studies undertaken duringthe stocktake review, written papers hadinitially been commissioned from keystakeholders associated with theproduction and use of those codes. Wherenecessary these ‘expert papers’ weresupplemented with additional interviewsduring the monitoring and evaluationwork.

f. Post-occupancy evaluation – a case-by-caseevaluation of the urban design qualitiesand perceptions of residents ofdevelopments that are completed orpartially completed using a simple urbandesign appraisal tool.

This Final Report is based on comprehensiveanalysis of all nineteen case studies.However, at the time of analysis in December2005, only two of the pilot case studies hadagreed a final draft of their codes and hadthem formally endorsed/adopted by therelevant local authority. One of these andone other (in its draft form) had begun touse their codes to assess and determineapplications for development proposals. Theeight Advanced studies and the four Non-code studies were therefore particularlyvaluable in helping to fill the gaps.

199

ANNEX B: THE METHODOLOGY

This glossary is not comprehensive, but includes key technical termsused throughout the document. A glossary of design terminology canbe found in the Government’s guidance ‘By Design, Urban Design inthe Planning System: Towards Better Practice’. An up-dated glossary ofplanning terms as they relate to design can be found in CABE’sguidance ‘Making Design Policy Work, How to Deliver Good DesignThrough Your Local Development Framework’.

Term Meanings

Area action plan Document used to provide the planningframework for areas where significant changeis anticipated or where conservation isparamount

Building envelope The three dimensional envelope (volume)within which the building exists

BREEAM Building Research EstablishmentEnvironmental Assessment Methodology

Call-in Planning applications called-in fordetermination by the Secretary of State

Character areas Areas of distinct and identifiable characterwithin a larger development

Character area matrix A matrix laying out the design qualities andfeatures of each character area

Charette An event bringing together a range of peopleto discuss design issues. Also known as adesign workshop

Conditioning The process of using a condition to a planningpermission to establish a particularrequirement to which the permission is subject

Delegated Powers Powers delegated from the formal planningcommittee to their officers, for example todetermine certain types of permissions

Design statement A statement accompanying a planningpermission that lays out the design principleson which a development proposal is based

Design guidance The generic name for a wide range ofguidance – design briefs, frameworks, codes,guides, etc.

Legal agreements between thelandowner/master developer and parceldevelopers laying out the principles on whichfreehold rights to develop will be granted

The generic term for documents prepared bythe local planning authority setting out thebroad design, development and planningprinciples for a particular site

Development brief(planning briefs,design briefs)

Developmentagreements


200

Annex C: glossary of terms

Design guidance for large sites establishing thebroad two/three-dimensional form ofdevelopment, including all key structuralelements

Enquiry by Design A methodology of collaborative designpromoted by the Prince’s Foundation

LDDC London Docklands Development Corporation

Local design guide A form of generic design guidance used byplanning authorities for particular types ofdevelopment e.g. housing

An order made by a local planning authoritygranting automatic planning consent for theform of development specified in the order

Local vernacular study A systematic study of the characteristics of thelocal vernacular architecture for a specifiedarea

Masterplan A three-dimensional spatial vision for a siteestablishing key urban design relationships butnot necessarily the architecture

Mini codes More detailed codes for the different characterareas of a site already covered by a designcode

Natural surveillance The passive surveillance of streets and spacesfrom the occupants of surrounding buildingsand from the users of the streets and spaces

Planning permission given subject to reservedmatters, for example detailed design

Outline planningconsent

Local developmentorder (LDO)

Developmentframework (designframeworks)

Parcel A sub-area of a larger site divided off fordevelopment, often by a parcel developerchosen on the basis of a tender process

Perimeter block The traditional means of developing urbanareas, with buildings surrounding urban blocksand protecting private space within the centreof the block and facing onto public streets andspaces around

Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) areprepared by the Government after publicconsulation to explain statutory provisions andprovide guidance to local authorities andothers on planning policy and the operation ofthe planning system. PPGs are being replacedby Planning Policy Statements

Planning Policy Statements (PPS) set out theGovernment’s national policies on differentaspects of land use planning in England.They should be taken into account byplanning authorities in preparation of theirdevelopment plans, and may also be materialto decisions on individual planningapplications.

Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) aregradually replacing Planning Policy GuidanceNotes (PPGs)

PPG1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 1: GeneralPolicies and Principles. This has been replacedby Planning Policy Statement 1: DeliveringSustainable Development

Planning PolicyStatements

Planning PolicyGuidance

201

ANNEX C: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

PPG3 Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing

PPG6 Planning Policy Guidance Note 6: Planning forTown Centres. This has been replaced byPlanning Policy Statement 6: Planning forTown Centres

PPG13 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport

PPG17 Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planningfor Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Procurement process The process of procuring design ordevelopment services

Regulating plan A two dimensional plan setting out the keydevelopment parameters of a site – buildinglines, frontage widths, block and streetdimensions, active frontages, etc.

Reserved matters Matters held over for future considerationfollowing the granting of an outline planningconsent, and subject to a further reservedmatters application

Section 106 agreements An agreement setting out the planning gainobligations that developers enter into as partof the planning permission

A statement submitted by a parcel developerto a landowner/master developer or localauthority, formally confirming compliance withthe design code

Street hierarchy The hierarchy of street, road and footpathtypes used in an area

Statement ofcompliance

Guidance produced to supplement the old-style development plan

Guidance produced to supplement the new-style Local Development Documents, whichmay be adopted as part of the LocalDevelopment Framework

A form of drainage designed to collect andrecycle water and drainage on-site

Urban design strategy A form of urban design guidance for a largearea e.g. a city centre, giving spatialexpression to design policy and identifyinga desired future urban form

Urban village A traditional urbanism concept for asustainable urban neighbourhood originallypromoted by the Urban Villages Forum

Sustainable urbandrainage (SUDS)

SupplementaryPlanning Document(SPD)

Supplementaryplanning guidance(SPG)


202

Acknowledgements for images and case studies

Documents:

Case Study Document Title Prepared by

Ralph Erskine Architect Planner ABGreenwich Millennium Village, Masterplan Design Code January 2000

Greenwich MillenniumVillage

John Simpson & PartnersMasterplan Design Criteria for theColdharbour Farm Development Updated April 1993

Fairford Leys, Aylesbury

Tetlow King for Mid Beds District CouncilUrban Design Strategy Fairfield ParkConsultation Draft October 2002

Fairfield Park, Letchworth

John Simpson and PartnersSwindon Southern Development AreaDesign Code, Introduction and PlanningBackground July 2005

Swindon SDA

Roger Evans Associates for Rotherham Metropolitan BoroughCouncil, Transform South Yorkshire, Yorkshire Forward.

Design Code for the Rotherham TownCentre River Corridor September 2005

Rotherham Town CentreRiver Corridor

Newcastle City CouncilWalker Riverside Draft Design CodeNovember 2005

Newcastle Walker Riverside

Urban Initiatives for Sea Space, Hastings Borough CouncilOre Valley, Hastings MillenniumCommunity Urban Design Codes July 2005

Hastings Ore Valley

John Thompson and PartnersKingshill Design CodeBerkeley Community Villages

Cirencester Kingshill South

EDAWAshford Barracks Design Codes 18th October 2004

Ashford Barracks

Entec, Alan Baxter Associates for Defence EstatesAldershot Urban Extension Design CodeAldershot Urban Extension

203

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Case Study Document Title Prepared by

North Somerset CouncilDevelopment Framework for PortisheadQuay at East Portishead SupplementaryPlanning Guidance 1997

Port Marine, Portishead

Newcastle City CouncilNewcastle Great Park Design CodeNovember 2000

Newcastle Great Park

Tibbalds Monro for CrestGreenhithe Waterfront Character Area Study – Design StatementsFebruary 1999

Greenhithe, Kent

Terry Farrell & Company for Alfred McAlpineCambourne Design Guide May 1995Cambourne, Cambridgeshire

Tibbalds Monro for LDDC, Wimpey HomesThe Urban Village Design Codes, WestSilvertown Urban Village, Royal VictoriaDock South (no date)

West Silvertown, Newham

EDAW for English Partnerships, Northampton borough Council,Princes Foundation

Upton Design Code March 2005 version 2Upton, Northampton

Roger Evans Associates for New Hall Projects LtdNewhall Land Parcels ID (+IE) Planningand Design Information November 2000

Newhall, Harlow

Tibbalds Planning & Urban Design for English Partnerships,Bournville Village Trust

Lightmoor Telford Design Guidance January 2004

Lightmoor, Telford

Hulme Regeneration LimitedA Guide to Development Rebuilding theCity Hulme, Manchester, June 1994

Hulme, Manchester


204

Images:

Case Study Images Credit

© Gardner Stewart ArchitectsThe Urban Village Design Codes, WestSilvertown Urban Village, Royal VictoriaDock South Tibbalds Monro LDDC,Wimpey Homes (no date)

West Silvertown, Newham

English Partnerships, EDAW, Alan Baxter’s, Northampton BoroughCouncil and The Princes Foundation

Upton Design Code English Partnerships,Northampton borough Council, Princes Foundation March 2005 version 2

Upton, Northampton

© Roger Evans Associates LtdNewhall Land Parcels ID (+IE) Planningand Design Information Roger EvansAssociates for New Hall Projects LtdNovember 2000

Newhall, Harlow

© Tibbalds Planning & Urban DesignLightmoor Telford Design GuidanceTibbalds Planning & Urban Design, English Partnerships, Bournville VillageTrust January 2004

Lightmoor, Telford

Manchester City CouncilA Guide to Development Rebuilding theCity Hulme Manchester HulmeRegeneration Limited, June 1994

Hulme, Manchester

John Simpson & PartnersMasterplan Design Criteria for theColdharbour Farm Development JohnSimpson & Partners Updated April 1993

Fairford Leys, Aylesbury

Mid Beds District CouncilUrban Design Strategy Fairfield ParkConsultation Draft Tetlow King October 2002

Fairfield Park, Letchworth

205

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Case Study Images Credit

Photographic images of development credited to the research team unless otherwise stated.

North Somerset CouncilDevelopment Framework for PortisheadQuay at East Portishead Supplementary Planning Guidance 1997

Port Marine, Portishead

Newcastle City Council and Ordnance Survey 100019569Newcastle Great Park Design CodeNewcastle City Council November 2000

Newcastle Great Park

© Gardner Stewart ArchitectsGreenhithe Waterfront Character Area Study – Design Statements Crest,Tibbalds Monro February 1999

Greenhithe, Kent

“All Cambourne images are by kind permission of MCADevelopment Ltd”

Cambourne Design Guide Alfred McAlpine,Terry Farrell & Company May 1995

Cambourne, Cambridgeshire


206

£40.00ISBN 1 85112 855-7ISBN 978185112855-6