|
Urban design:
the challenge to the planning system
David Wilson, Planning Officers Society of Wales
It was proposed at a recent RTPI branch seminar on urban design that "we have the
means to deliver good quality urban design but how successful are we in using them?."
Can we really be proud of what our professions, collectively, have achieved? Overall I
don't think so. My view is that there is less a need for changes to legislation and
circulars than for these to be used more successfully.
A definition of urban design has been offered in an article by Kevin
Cambell and Robert Cowan in Planning (12 February 1999). Urban design can be
considered to be
"the
art of shaping the interaction between, people and places, environment and urban form, and
nature and built fabric, and influencing the processes which lead to successful villages,
towns and cities."
Or,
more succinctly, how do buildings fit together to make quality spaces? We need to
concentrate on this objective rather than on the design of individual buildings which has
so occupied our minds in the past. The roles and skills involved included those of the
landscape architect, the architect, the planner, the engineer and the "urban
designer". Where the urban designer is absent from a project the wider context of a
building is likely to be ignored; this seems to have been the case with Cardiff’s
Millennium Centre project, where the architects’ presentations have omitted the
building’s surroundings. What is an urban designer? Is this a discipline in its own
right, or a strand of other disciplines?
Creating quality spaces involves more than just designers. Other roles
involved in making a development happen also have an influence on the environment and this
is often forgotten. Think of the environmental impact of the advice offered by lawyers,
surveyors and valuers. The client is generally concerned with best value on his
investment. Politicians have a critical role, but seldom complain about
environmental quality until after development is completed; poor quality is so often
tolerated; does this reflect public apathy or public priorities? The institutions who fund
development are central to the content and quality of schemes. How often do they consider
the site they are investing in, in physical or design terms?
The planning process
Most of the tools we need to influence urban design in practice exist within the
present planning system. Within present policy guidance for Wales, for example:
The appearance of proposed development, its scale and its relationship to its
surroundings, are material considerations. (PG (W) para 4)
LPAs can "reject
obviously poor design" (para 45)
LPA guidance should
"concentrate on broad matters of scale, density, height, massing, layout, landscape
and access and should avoid excessive prescription of detail" (TAN 12, para 4)
"Development plans
should set out design policies against which development proposals are to be considered.
Policies should be based on a proper assessment of the character of the surrounding built
and natural environment and should take account of the defining characteristics of each
local area…
"Plan policies
should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the
overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout and access of new development
in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally." (PPG Annex
A)
"Development plans
may refer to supplementary design guidance, including local design guides and other
specific development briefs which can usefully elucidate and exemplify plan policies,
thereby giving greater certainty to all those involved in the design and development
process…
"The weight
accorded to supplementary design guidance in planning decisions will be expected to
increase where it has been prepared in consultation with the public and with those whose
work it may affect, and has been formally adopted by the local planning authority."
(ibid.)
These examples of the
role of the planning system in so far as it relates to urban design give plenty of scope
for it to be more effective than it currently is. However, there is a Catch 22 about the
planning system. It is not practical for development plans to set out detailed urban
design policies; this level of detail is more appropriate in supplementary guidance. In a
plan-led system this often means that the existing framework fails to provide the context
for individual developments. Supplementary guidance, when it is provided, and which can
contain the relevant detail with regard to scale, density, massing and so on, lacks the
status of the development plan itself and is therefore frequently undervalued at appeal.
The psychology of "if it is important it goes in the Plan" results in less
weight being given to information or guidance not included therein.
In the absence of such guidance, it is the sharp end of planning,
development control, that has to consider scale, density and massing, etc. Yet how many
planners are actually trained in the skills that are required to influence the form and
design of a proposal and the quality of the spaces that it creates? It is also hard to get
applicants to provide information on the context of their schemes, and many schemes are
not submitted by suitably qualified agents and/or reflect a client’s aspirational
based valuation with a scale or type of development completely inappropriate in urban
design terms.
Proposed DETR guidance on good practice in urban design offers some
useful ways forward in enabling the planning process to be proactive in delivering
environmental quality. In particular it defines both the "hardware" and
"software" we might use. "Hardware" equals development plans,
development briefs, design guides, statements and so on; "software" denotes
proactive management and the developing of skills and quality audits. Development briefs
in particular can place sites in context in an illustrated manner. These are rarely
offered by planning departments, yet they would offer certainty to architects and
developers and could support an LPA’s case at appeal.
In the case of Swansea’s Maritime Quarter a successful development
was created through the operation of a number of relevant factors:
- public ownership of land
- an overall development and urban design strategy
- design briefs
- a tendering process which assessed both the quality and value of submissions
- the use of building agreements to facilitate development
I wonder whether the following features are more typical of the
current situation in Wales?
- a lack of skills at local authority level
- a generally poor standard of design
- little attention paid to context in development proposals
- the space between buildings is omitted from consideration, and remains undesigned
- as a result there is a lack of clear ownership of the environment that is created
between buildings and no clarity as to whether the responsibility for such spaces and
their functions is public or private
- for standards there is a reliance on the rule book, and often highways standards
dominate
- development often has the target of maximum profit rather than quality environment
- neither the public, nor often elected members, care enough about environmental
quality to demand higher standards.
In conclusion I would reiterate that the planning system does have the overall responsibility for
delivering a quality urban environment. It has the statutory and democratic framework to
do this but there is a need for additional skills to be present within the planning
process to support planners and produce urban design statements, development and design
briefs, and so on, that reflect a community’s aspirations for its area. There is also
a need for the Assembly to emphasise the importance of the LPA carrying out this function
and for it to give more weight to properly prepared supplementary planning guidance
Discussion
(Discussion at this point in the seminar included responses to both Kay's and David's contributions.)
Malcolm Parry wanted Kay to elaborate on her reference to an "expert group" and "strategic alliances" that could improve the built environment. Was it intended that experts should impose their will on the general public. Hopefully there was a means of finding a more democratic structure than the Royal Fine Arts Commission. He noted that it had been said that it is likely that the Assembly will influence our lives through the planning system more than in any other aspect of its work.
Kay Powell wondered how the public or politicians are involved in environmental design quality. Public and politicians will become involved in the issue if there is a widespread recognition of its importance. Therefore it should not be the role of an ex-clusive group but should be part of a wider debate. The Assembly has the potential to be a powerful influence but it is likely to prioritise those issues which are publicly recognised as important.
Sue Essex Planning is a field where the NAW has great discretion. The sustainable development issue is key and urban design needs to be brought into this discussion as part of the Assembly's Sustainable Development Plan. There needs to be pressure to convince politicians that design matters. In fact the public often does care deeply about planning and design issues, but in an undemonstrative way; and politicians on planning committees are very well aware that the public can have heartfelt concerns about quality. The problem is that there is not an obvious means of helping the general public to articulate this concern, and there may be a role for the professions in assisting here. We also need to tackle the influence of highways design standards in determining the layout and environmental quality of urban areas. We face the danger of a future in which our cities are marked by islands of development in a sea of dual carriageway systems; it is hard to get transport engineers involved in design!
Kay Powell suggested that making the planning process quicker might help to keep people's interest and attention.
Katherine Hughes emphasised social inclusion and pointed out that at the community level there is a lack of skills that are needed for genuine public engagement. There may an opportunity within the curriculum and its promised focus on citizenship to develop understanding of environmental and planning issues. Built environment education has a key part to play in enabling people to make linkages between their aspirations and planning issues. We need to equip people to be consulted.
Richard Jarvis wondered how far lpas can assist in this process given their obligation to pursue best value. He pointed to the potential of user panels as a means of scrutinising what has been developed and developing dialogue.
Michael Sharp pointed to the need within councils for both formal and informal cross-disciplinary work. This was a corner for the Assembly and professions to fight; cross-disciplinary work should be at the root of all planning and all planning deci-sions. Otherwise highway standards will rule and design will be neglected.
Several comments were made on the conservative nature of the appeal process; and it was suggested that refusals on design grounds could be undermined at appeal. There was a great weight to precedent. Some planning appeal decisions appeared inexplicable.
Kay Powell emphasised the professionalism of the Planning Inspectorate and the role of the appeal system as a public safeguard. No doubt there were ways of improving the system further. The new panel system might create opportunities for this, but cases will continue to require to be argued on the basis of the development plan and planning guidance. Peter Law (Assembly Secretary) wants the majority of decisions to remain local.
John Punter said that 62 percent of appeals on design issues were dismissed and that this was not a bad record. LPAs should be ready to make design a basis for refusal; they were likely to be successful.
Sue Essex noted that the new Appeals Panel will not be a means of reopening the whole debate on a planning proposal. Determinations must be made within the policy framework; but if strong reasons for refusal are offered on design grounds by a local planning authority it is likely that the panel will be sympathetic to these.
Bill Davies wondered whether a key point was not being missed. How far can a vision for the future be articulated. He reflected on the history of relative poverty of aspira-tion in Wales with regard to design. The NAW offered a chance to change this pat-tern. There were opportunities for it to achieve much in influencing design taking into account historical and cultural factors rather than the lowest common denominator of quality.
David Wilson (response) It was important while having an intellectual discussion at one level not to forget how decisions are made at the sharp end of the planning system. There needs to be a mechanism to articulate community aspirations within the planning process, and this demands the multidisciplinary expertise which is often lacking. This is rarely in place so that local planning authority decisions seem to be poorly substantiated, and as a result the appeal process can be disap-pointing from the point of view of the LPA. If quality is important then there must be appropriate weight attached to urban design statements, development briefs and design briefs and there is a role for the Assembly in ensuring that weight is there in a way that can be relied on by LPAs and acknowledged in appeals.
As I have already said, the planning system has the overall responsibility for ensuring quality urban spaces. But it is clearly not as effective as we would like in achieving this goal. How can it be more effective? What can the Assembly do to make it more effective? It is important
- to reinforce the importance of public space in producing a quality urban environment
- to encourage LPAs to prepare urban design statements, briefs, audits and development guides, and these should be evolved through public consultation before being adopted
- to encourage LPAs to employ (or retain on a project basis) personnel with the relevant skills
to give more weight to SPG.
If in the past the Development Plan could be made up of a Structure Plan and Subject Plans, why could not today's Development Plan be a UDP plus properly prepared supplementary planning guidance? This would have the benefit of streamlining and speeding up the Development Plan process. Couldn't the Assembly tale the opportunity to reflect this in distinctively Welsh guidance?
|
|
