Design codes: the verdict

Faster planning permission. That is what the government, in December's consultation document on PPS3, says design codes could deliver. Given the present planning delays and constraints, housebuilders would consider anything that speeds up the process to be well worth having but, at the same time, design coding has been regarded with suspicion by some architects and housebuilders, who perceive some examples to be excessively onerous.

Design codes are intended as a set of rules to guide the physical development of a place, defining what design quality means for that location. Commonly, they set down the street hierarchy, demand that large-scale housing developments are divided into character areas and require cars to be neatly tidied away into rear parking courts.

Whether you regard those kind of rules as useful guidance or not, the use of coding is on the up with many English Partnerships sites now demanding code compliance. The draft PPS3 aims to spread the use of coding even further. It encourages local authorities to use design coding for large-scale sites to expedite the planning process, enforcing the code through either a supplementary planning document, area action plan, condition to planning permission or a local development order.

The ODPM has set out how it believes coding will work in a guide issued last December called The Future for Design Codes, but how does the reality measure up to the ODPM's aspirations? To find out, Regenerate asked the users, representatives from architects HTA and PRP, who have between them worked with some 40 design codes, and consultant Alan Baxter & Associates, which has been responsible for formulating codes. Here is their verdict.

Benefit 1: Quality

Once you get into stylistic issues, you get into muddy waters. A good code cannot guarantee good design

Vivek Nanda, Alan Baxter

The ODPM guide says confidently: "The major benefit of design coding is in delivering high-quality design … Developments produced with design codes are of notably higher quality, so much so that they are setting new quality benchmarks in the locations where they are used."

Our architect panel thought the presence of a code generally aided delivery of design quality, but some codes were considered to be highly prescriptive in dictating design solutions. Vivek Nanda, director at Alan Baxter & Associates, said: "You have to identify what are the ‘must dos', ‘should dos' and ‘could dos' with coding, otherwise there can be an overprescription. The moment that you get into stylistic issues, you get into muddy waters. A good code cannot guarantee good design."

Some of our users stuck rigorously to the letter of the code, others had negotiated design variations with clients where they sought to innovate and others had submitted proposals that departed significantly from the code and had still made it through to the next stage of a bid without any apparent penalty. Steve Newman, design leader at HTA, said: "EP has let us bend the rules. They have been relaxed in applying the codes in the judging process."

Richard Rogers Partnership's submission of a design code-compliant scheme for a site at Oxley Park, near Milton Keynes, was cited by way of example. The site's design code is in keeping with its village location with, for example, a demand for 60% stone elevations to homes, and that is the kind of demand that might not sit easily with the desire to use modern methods of construction on what is a Design for Manufacture site. The judges, nonetheless, applied flexible thinking to deem the beige panel walls compliant.

What the users wanted, according to Marcio Grinbaum, project leader at HTA, was that "the code should be malleable enough for us to deviate when we see fit, if we can justify it".

However, the photos printed in design code documents to aid architects were highlighted as a particular problem area. PRP director Andy von Bradsky said: "Photos can be very misleading. You don't know if a photo is there for inspiration or what." HTA managing director Ben Derbyshire added: "If you show things that can't be delivered, you can give people unreal expectations."

If you show things that can’t be delivered, you can give people unreal expectations

Ben Derbyshire, HTA Architects

One worrying factor was considered to be the emergence of a new generation of design codes, many for extensions to medium-sized market towns. Robert Coles, director at PRP Architects, said: "They tend to take a traditional approach to architecture. They are full of references to rural, historicist traditional." Perhaps even more alarmingly, one architect had come across a local authority trying to write its own code and being highly prescriptive about materials.

Benefit 2: Speed of delivery

The ODPM says draft design codes can be prepared in two or three months, but accepts that refinement, agreement and all the other processes leading to the adoption of codes can take longer - up to two years. It holds out the promise that compliant development proposals will be rolled out quickly on sites covered by local development orders. The guidance adds: "Given the early and upfront investment in design and community consultation, local authorities can also determine planning applications quicker."

They may have the potential to increase speed of delivery in the new planning system, but experience suggests that codes have not saved time so far. Coles said: "For us they have added time. Codes not only have to be devised, but are then often tested before they are implemented. Then design teams submit competing bids. It's all time and money."

Benefit 3: Certainty

The ODPM guide says codes give all stakeholders a greater degree of certainty. Specifically, it says: "Developers applying for permissions for reserved matters can have greater certainty of quicker decisions providing the scheme is compliant with the design code. Furthermore, the costing of units, and therefore E E entire developments, can be assured by the introduction of the degree of certainty and standardisation offered by a code."

When design codes are such enormous documents, they can be confusing for housebuilders

Robert Coles, PRP Architects

Our users reported that coding often requires developers to deliver a product that they are not familiar with so could initially cause greater uncertainty, until the developer becomes used to working with coding. For example, coding often requires housebuilders to develop homes with rear parking courts, yet many housebuilders have no experience of these and might be unsure as to whether they could have a negative impact on sales. The sheer size of code documents was also an issue. Coles said: "When design codes are such enormous documents, they can sometimes be contradictory and confusing for housebuilders".

Benefit 4: Consensus and buy-in

The ODPM says: "Design coding provides the mechanism to bring together key decision-makers in one place at important junctures, which is critical to maintaining momentum in the development process."

Consensus is indeed crucial to making codes work, said Nanda of Alan Baxter & Associates. It is a big potential bonus for a developer to know that key issues, notably those concerning highways, have been resolved by the time it arrives on the scene. However, our panel could think of examples where that consensus was sadly lacking and local authority highways departments were out of step with other partners to the coding process.

Nanda said: "To get people - strategic partners and key council members or departments - around a table to agree key principles is paramount to the coding process. This is about getting a baseline agreement on key strategic issues to fight crucial battles at the beginning rather than have masterplans unravelling in the midst of the process.

"The code needs to be a covenant of consensus. Upton [the extension to Northampton] has been endorsed by the planning authority and English Partnerships is responsible for delivering the primary infrastructure and all key parties are monitoring that what is done is of high quality. That's absolutely paramount. If there isn't the stewardship of a patron, strategic partner, or design champion, don't code it."