The Use of Urban Design Codes

8/2/2019 The Use of Urban Design Codes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-use-of-urban-design-codes 1/12

The use of urbandesign codes

Building sustainablecommunities



Introduction

Why code? What does code look like?

What sorts of codes are likelyto work best in the UK?

Making coding work

Beyond coding

Conclusion

12

3

4

5

CABE champions the creation of great buildings and public spaces.

It is a non-departmental public body funded by the Department for Culture,

Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).

Through public campaigns and support to professionals, CABE encourages

the development of well-designed homes, streets, parks, offices, schools,

hospitals and other public buildings. www.cabe.org.uk

Front cover

Abode | Harlow, Essex

Development based on

clearly defined palette of

colours and materials

Photo | Peter Jenkins, CABE



The way we plan and design placeshas a significant impact on their socialand economic fortunes. This is true inthe regeneration of existing neighbour-hoods and the development of newcommunities. Good urban design canhelp increase property values, reduce

crime, contribute to public health andease transport problems.

The Government has placed theimportance of high quality design at theheart of its plan to create sustainablecommunities, in both areas of housinggrowth and housing market renewal.

There are threats to realising this ambition.One is that the inherent bureaucracy ofthe land use planning and fundingdecision-making processes will hinderthe speed and efficiency of development. A second is that the market will fail torespond adequately and consistently tothe Government’s desire to create highquality development that represents bestpractice in architecture and urban design,and high environmental standards.

The Government has recognised thatthese concerns are well placed. Thequality of administration of the land useplanning process around the country ishighly variable with councillors in particularoften under public pressure to slow down

or refuse development. At the same time,there is significant public and politicaldistrust in the ability and willingnessof developers consistently to producedistinctive designs that reflect the localcontext. The legacy of 30 years ofsoulless housing estates pays testamentto the dilemma.

The two concerns are indeed inter-connected. The NIMBYism flows in partfrom the understandable fear of local

communities that new neighbouringdevelopment will detract from the qualityof the local environment, perhaps draggingdown house values as well as eroding thesense of community identity.

In looking for a way to address these

concerns, the Government, in the personof the Deputy Prime Minister, has beenexamining international best practice. Onemodel, used in parts of the United States, Australia and Europe is urban coding – asystem whereby land owners establish thekey components of the design of newdevelopments up front and, through legalrequirement, then require abidance by anydevelopers subsequently wanting to buildin the area covered by the code.

This paper seeks to introduce some of theissues relating to the use of design codes.It is very much a scene-setting paper withthe intention of exposing some of the keyquestions about codes rather than reachingany firm answers. Those questions include:

• could codes result in higher quality,more efficient development?

• how might codes work as part ofour planning system?

• how do codes relate to landownership?

• what should be covered by a code?

• how prescriptive should a code be?

• are there alternatives to coding thatshould also be considered?

The main conclusion of the paper is thatthe Government should commit to asignificant programme of research andpilot schemes to test the use of differentforms of codes in different UK contexts.

Introduction

Northshore |

St Mary’s Island

Development shows

character and distinction

Photo | Chatham Maritime

© Countryside Properties



Our land use planning system does nothave a strong track record of consistentlyproducing high quality development. Itsometimes manages to stop the veryworst new schemes from being built but,with the exception of a small number ofexemplary planning authorities, it tends

not to be proactive in securing thehighest quality new development.

The time is therefore right forexperimentation within the planningsystem. As with other areas of Governmentpolicy, there is the opportunity to moveaway from a one-size-fits-all nationaltemplate to administering the system.Making places is an art as much as ascience, and there is no reason why thesame control systems need to be appliedby every authority to every planning

applicant on every site. The Government’srecent decision to pilot Business PlanningZones shows an openness to testalternative planning tools that could bothspeed up the system and result in higherquality development. The potential use ofdesign codes offers another option.

Codes are not a new idea. They havebeen used in one form or another sincethe Renaissance, and possibly earlier.Some of our most cherished developments,from the Georgian period through to theGarden Villages and New Towns, werebased on adopted codes. We do not havethe opportunity to explore that history hereand would refer instead to the valuablework undertaken by the Prince’s Foundationin this area, and previously the Urban Villages Forum.

There are several recent UK examplesof the use of urban design codes. There-development of Hulme in Manchesterin the early 1990s followed guidelines thatwere close to a code. More recently, thePrince of Wales’ development at Poundbury

laid down a prescriptive code based on theprinciples of traditional urbanism, andHis Royal Highness is sponsoring the

development of codes for other projectswithin the Duchy. English Partnershipshave also been working with the Prince’sFoundation to apply codes to new schemeson ex-new town land such as Upton on theedge of Northampton. Defence Estateshave also employed the use of codes in

planning new residential development.There are also occasional examples inrespect of commercial development.

The concept of an urban design codestarts from the proposition that the designof a new development can be plannedand regulated to achieve a higher qualityoutcome. It introduces an increased levelof design control in an attempt to exertgreater assurance over the quality ofthe product.

Most, although not all codes, are basedon the further premise that there arecertain rules or principles that apply tothe process of making or re-making placesthat can be applied and interpreted for agiven location and then captured in writtenand plan form.

CABE would agree with these propositions.We do consider that there are certain keycomponents of good urban design that willhelp to determine whether a place willfunction well in providing a safe, attractiveand desirable environment in which to live,

work and play. We have already capturedthese principles in the companion guide toPlanning Policy Guidance Note 1 By Designand PPG3 Better Places to Live. They havealso been well articulated by EnglishPartnerships and the Housing Corporationin their Urban Design Compendium, and bythe Prince’s Foundation in publicationssuch as Urban Villages.

Why code?

1

Beaufort House,

Lillie Road | London

A good example of

integrated housing and

amenities

Illustration | Feilden

Clegg Bradley, Architects

Photo | Mandy Reynolds,

Fotoforum



Good urban design is of course notenough in itself to determine the qualityof life in a neighbourhood. There are manyother factors such as levels of economicactivity, quality of education provision,community safety etc that will play theirpart, but good urban design can be the

glue that binds other economic andsocial benefits together.

Those principles of good urban designinclude local distinctiveness based onhistoric character, ease of movement,legibility, quality of public space, continuityand enclosure, and adaptability. They canbe achieved by the way that we arrange orrearrange streets and spaces, and how weplan the mass, scale and position ofbuildings within the landscape. The resultis all the things we love about our best

neighbourhoods – a clear centre withshops and community amenities, a placethat is easy to walk around and also feelssafe, different places for children to playand high quality public buildings such asschools and health centres. And most ofall, it can give us a clear and distinct senseof place that marks out the place we live,and in which we can take pride.

Can all this be captured up front in asingle document and plan? The answer is,thankfully, ‘no’. Places evolve in the mostunexpected and diverse ways. They areshaped and re-shaped by the peoplewho live there, who own and inhabit theproperties. But what a code can do is give

a place a better start or a fresh start, bymaking sure the basics are right and bysetting some clear parameters as to whatcan be done and what can’t be done inchanging and evolving the physical fabricof the neighbourhood. They can also stopbad things happening to neighbourhoodsthat can detract from everybody’s qualityof life, in particular, by making sure thatdevelopers who may not care as much asthe communities themselves, have to careif they want to build. Indeed, the developmentof a code can be an excellent way of

capturing and expressing community values.

Homes for work

and change |

Hulme, Manchester

Design features help

knit communities

Photos | Sabine

Englehardt & RUDI

Borneo Sporenberg |

South & East

Amsterdam Docks

Diversity and creativity within

well-defined parameters

Photos | Peter Stewart and

Dan Thomson, CABE



Our first task is to decide what wemean by a design code. In thinkingthrough this, we should first recognisethat design codes can be destructiveas well as constructive. There are badcodes. Indeed, the most widely usedcodes in this country are those which

prescribe highways standards, which inprioritising the needs of the car havearguably prevented us from achievinga high quality built environment in manyneighbourhoods. It is a good reminderthat a code as a process is only a means,not an end. What matters is the contentof the code. Ultimately, a code can onlybe as good as those who write it andthose who implement it.

At its simplest, a code is a form ofdetailed guidance. Many scheme promoters

and local planning authorities already drawup design guidelines that cover most of theelements of a code. These guidelines willoften be adopted by the planning authority,following public consultation, asSupplementary Planning Guidance.This means that the guidelines are treatedas a material consideration when planningdecisions on individual planning applicationsare taken, to be weighed and balancedagainst other material considerations.

A code potentially goes further.The parameters and requirements it setsout are likely to be stricter and more exact,and where possible, compliance is likelyto form part of the legal arrangementsgoverning what and how developmentoccurs in the area governed by the code.

The code is likely to comprise tworelated components:

• a three dimensional masterplan ofthe development area (and probablyan area beyond) that shows clearlythe intended arrangement of spaces

and buildings, including massing,orientation, distribution of uses,densities, building lines, spaces etc.

a supporting set of written requirementsthat explain the plan, includingdimensions where relevant, and whichaddress more detailed issues, includingissues such as use of materials,landscaping and tenancy mix dependingon the level of prescription required.

In the most prescriptive plans, such asthose favoured by the Congress of NewUrbanism in the US and the Prince’sFoundation in the UK, the code willprobably provide a pattern book, detailingclearly and exactly the limitations on thedesign of buildings, the choice ofstreetscape materials, private landscapingoptions, ornamentation restrictions etc.in different locations within the plan area.

Codes are therefore very diverse.Even within the same code, there maybe different levels of prescription rangingthrough recommendations, options andfixed requirements, perhaps applied todifferent parts of the site. And, ultimately,the power of any code is dependent onthe system of implementation includingthe levels of enforcement.

What does a code look like?

2

Bishops Mead |

Chelmsford

Local distinctiveness

based on historic character

of the area

Photo | Mark Ellis

Fishing Village |

St Mary’s Island

Interpretation of Kent

vernacular architecture and

materials create a distinctive

community

Photo | Chatham Maritime

© Countryside Properties



The Deputy Prime Minister recentlystated that he wanted sustainablecommunities to represent ‘coherencewithout conformity’ in making themdistinctive and attractive at the startof the 21st century.

CABE would like to see the use ofdesign codes that help to address thecharacterless homogeneity of much ofour recent housing development. But theyshould also give ample room for the UKarchitectural and landscape architecturalprofessions to work creatively withcommunities to shape their neighbourhoodsto meet their own needs and desires.

In other words, CABE favours codes thatensure we get the fundamentals right butare not so prescriptive that they give toolittle scope for distinctive architecturalexpression. Coding can and should exertarchitectural discipline, in the same wayas a good client brief, but it should notsmother creativity. Our pursuit is for qualityregardless of choice of style. Since CABEwas created, we have commentedpositively on a number of developmentsthat reflected a traditional architecturalvernacular, executed with greatcraftsmanship and use of relevant qualitymaterials. We have also commentedpositively on contemporary approachesthat abide by key urban design principlesbut provide a contrasting architecturalresponse to their context.

CABE believes that the UK has the bestarchitects in the world, representing abroad mix of architectural traditions andphilosophies. We therefore see one of ourkey roles as ensuring that we draw outthe benefits of the whole architecturalcommunity. Consequently, one of our fearsabout the use of codes is that they couldbe used to favour only one form ofarchitectural expression, be that traditional

or modern. This would give licence to anarchitectural fundamentalism that couldlead to artificial homogeneity, anddevelopment that would undoubtedly be

of a higher quality than the mass housingproduced in the last 20 – 30 years, butwhich would produce excessive uniformity.

Sir Winston Churchill remarked that ‘weshape our buildings; thereafter they shapeus’. Built form is bound to mirror society to

some extent. The uniformity of earlier erasof building in this country is arguably lessappropriate to a more democratic age whereindividual freedoms are recognised in law,and diversity is recognised as a positiveshaping force in society and culture.

Any coding system therefore needs flexibilityin its content and application. For example,we would consider that any code could bebroken if relevant parties agree (just as anylegal contract can be varied by mutualagreement). This is particularly important forlonger development programmes where arigid code could impede the detailed designof subsequent phases, preventing learningfrom experience or changing economic andsocial conditions. This flexibility is alsoimportant to stimulate excellence andinnovation, particularly in exceeding minimumstandards embedded within a code.

A generic list of issues that would needto be covered by a code is not a possibility.However, as a starting point, the issuescovered by CABE’s Building for Life Standardare likely to lend themselves to coding –

building lines, distances between buildings,street widths, energy performance.

The expansion of Freiburg in Germany is onegood example of the flexible use of codes. At one town extension, Vauban, the codeestablishes building lines, heights, plotcoverage, and energy efficiency, but allowsalmost complete freedom in other respects,for example, roof pitches can vary from 0 to45 degrees, stairs to apartments over housescan be external or internal. This projectshows how a code can produce great variety

in the architectural and landscape design ofbuildings and spaces while abiding with keyurban design principles, resulting in a richand attractive environment.

What sorts of codes are likelyto work best in the UK?

3



Coding and the planning system

There is nothing to prevent a localplanning authority adopting a designcode as supplementary planning guidanceat the current time, provided the code isin line with national and regional planning

guidance and derives out of and isconsistent with the policies set out inthe authority’s adopted development plan,to which it should specifically cross-refer.The code may have been devised by theplanning authority themselves, by anotherpublic body such as an urban regenerationcompany, by a private sector promoter,or by a public private partnership.

However, under the current planningsystem, the code will only have the strengthof a material planning consideration. The

weight to be placed on that considerationby a planning committee or planninginspector will depend a lot on the strengthof design policies and the recognition of theuse of coding as a local process within thelocal development plan itself. Substantialweight will only be afforded to the code if ithas been prepared in consultation with thegeneral public, businesses and otherinterested parties and their views taken intoaccount before the guidance is adopted bya formal resolution of the local authority.This process itself may have the unintended

consequence of tending to produce lowestcommon denominator results.

One option open to the Government is togive coding a more explicit place within theplanning system. This could be done in anumber of ways:

• amending primary legislation to givecodes explicit recognition as a deviceseparate and perhaps more powerfulthan ordinary supplementary planningguidance, (although this raises questionsas to how codes would then relate toand flow from the primary status of localplans under section 54A of the Townand Country Planning Act)

a dedicated circular on the adoption anduse of design codes, potentially backedby secondary legislation

• include design codes within PPG1 and/orPPG12 as a supported policy mechanismto achieve the delivery of sustainable

communities, thus strengthening theirstatus and weight as a material planningconsideration

• explicitly link the coding to the use of simplified planning zones to combinespeed of process and quality of outcome

• encourage local planning authorities to linkthe adoption of design codes to incentivesfor developers. For example, in some UScities, developers contract to follow designguidelines around public transport nodes

in return for permission to build at higherdensities than the authority wouldotherwise permit

Coding and land ownership

By far the most tested and effectiveway to use coding is as a land owner incontrolling the development process overtime to achieve a coherent outcome.Clearly, there is nothing to prevent a privateland owner or consortium of owners fromdoing this in selling on freehold or leaseholdinterests, or in directly engaging individual

contractors to develop the site. Suchdevelopments can vary from the highlyprescriptive, such as Poundbury, to themore flexible, such as Abode in Harlow.

The real opportunity here for Governmentis the public holdings of its regenerationagencies, predominantly EnglishPartnerships, and other public bodies suchas the Ministry of Defence, Strategic Rail Authority and NHS Estates. One couldforesee a scenario of compulsorymasterplanning and coding for sites over a

certain size intended for development orre-development as residential schemes.

Making coding work

4



If the Government is supportive of coding,it could also place a greater accent onstrategic land acquisition by publicagencies through CPO and other formsof land assembly. This might in turn haverepercussions for how funding is allocatedto physical regeneration projects, with

greater weight being given to schemeswhere design control can be exactedthrough the use of coding.

Coding and public funding systems

A less effective but, nevertheless, supportiveapproach is to embed the importance ofcoding within relevant public fundingsystems, particularly those of EnglishPartnerships, Regional Development Agencies and the Housing Corporation.For example, the requirement of a coded

approach to large housing association ledschemes could be valuable.

Abode | Harlow, Essex

Development based on

clearly defined palette of

colours and materials

Photo | Peter Jenkins, CABE



In CABE’s view, coding is never goingto provide a one-size-fits-all solution.It is likely to be applicable to a proportionof larger schemes, particularly townextensions, major brownfield redevelop-ment sites and brand new settlements.It will not necessarily work, except in a

very loose and flexible form, for complexinfill development schemes.

At the same time, there must be realismabout the Government attempting to codedecisions that only the market can make.For example, rigidity over the location andmix of neighbourhood retail is pointless ifthe market determines that the locationand mix should work differently.

A good example of the need for flexibilityis the development of Brindleyplace in the

centre of Birmingham. Originally conceivedas a public sector masterplan, the schemewas evolved and adapted over time by theprivate sector as market opportunities andcircumstances changed. If the originalmasterplan had been adopted as a rigidcode, it is questionable whether thedevelopment would have been undertakenin anything like its current form or with thesame level of commercial success.

In issuing caution on the use of codes asa panacea, it raises the question of what

else the Government might consider tocapture quality and efficiency. Part of thisprocess is to ensure that planningauthorities are already making best use ofthe tools already available to them. Thereare a series of guidance documents thatcan help local authorities in this respect,including:

Protecting Design Quality in Planning,CABE (2003)

By Design, ODPM/CABE (2000)

Beyond the existing mechanisms of SPG,design statements, conditions, agreementsand enforcement powers, the Government

may want to consider two more radical ideas:

• Licensing Proven Development Teams:

It is an unsurprising reality that thereare certain developers and architectswho can be trusted to produce highquality development, while there are

others who will seek to get away with alowest common denominator schemethat just scrapes its way through thepresent system. There is an argumentthat, as in the parable of the talents,trust should beget further trust. TheGovernment could introduce a systemto license development consortia basedon their development track record,giving them exemption from key partsof the development control process,perhaps limited to designated sites.Clearly, this would need to be a status

that could be lost as well as won. Itwould, however, be a way of rewardingthe best and incentivising the rest whilefreeing up local planning authorityresources to deal with the recalcitrants.

• Design Audit: On a wider base theGovernment could introduce, as part ofthe planning process a design gatewayfor all residential schemes over a certainsize. Again, the reward would be thatthose schemes passing successfullythrough the review process would then

enter a fast-track decision-makingprocess, perhaps based on an unfetteredentitlement to develop the scheme inaccordance with the agreed designs.

In both cases, the main downside is thepotential diminution of the role of the localdemocratic process in undertakingdevelopment control. This is a matter thatthe Government would need to considercarefully although our final observationwould be that the track record of planningauthorities’ to date to achieve design

quality has been patchy and limited.

Beyond coding

5

Brindleyplace |

Birmingham

Desirable environment

to live, work and play

Photo | Alan Barber



Conclusion

CABE is a supporter of the use of

design codes in the right circumstances.They are particularly useful in respect ofnew neighbourhood development, moreso where there is a single land ownerwhich can enforce the code intelligentlyas a matter of contract.

At the same time, we believe that theGovernment should proceed with somecaution in expanding the use of codes,piloting different approaches to test thewaters. In the last few years, we have seenevidence of at least some developers

recognising the need for masterplanners,urban designers and architects to deliverdevelopment, giving an increasedemphasis on good design. It is thereforeimportant that any Government sanctioneduse of codes builds on this success, ratherthan encouraging developers seeing theneed to respond to a code as a technicalcompliance issue, rather than a creativedesign challenge.

Where codes are introduced, ourpreference will generally be for codes

that are exacting in terms of the urban

design principles and more flexible inrespect of the architectural response inrelation to individual buildings.

We would recommend that the Governmentcommissions a substantial piece of researchon the potential use of codes that couldexplore in much more detail some of theissues raised in this paper. One positiveoption would be to pursue this work withthe recently established Charter forEuropean Urbanism which is committed tomany of the principles set out in this paper.

Subject to the results of the researchand pilot projects, we would, in principle,welcome the strengthening of planninglaw in support of codes.

We would, however, also encourage theGovernment not to think of coding as apanacea, but rather one of several possibletools that could be introduced to give usgreater certainty of high qualitydevelopment delivered more efficiently inour pursuit of sustainable communities.

D e s i g n : D U F F Y



Commission for Architecture

& the Built Environment

The Tower Building

11 York Road

London

SE1 7NX

T 020 7960 2400

F 020 7960 2444

E [email protected]

W www.cabe.org.uk

The Use of Urban Design Codes

Documents

Transcript of The Use of Urban Design Codes