Supplementary memorandum by CABE (The
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) (CAB 02(a))
APPENDICES
1. Map of CABE's activities across England
2. Listing of CABE publications and research
output
3. Criteria used by Design Review to consider
projects
4. Example Design Review letters
— CABE's published comment on proposals
for a new hospital in Birmingham, submitted by the University
Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust
— CABE's published comment on proposals
to regenerate a prime edge of city area with major mixed-use development
in Hereford.
5. Letter from DETR to planning authorities
of 15 May 2001
1. CABE'S WORK
ACROSS ENGLAND
2. CABE'S PUBLICATIONS
AND RESEARCH
OUTPUT
CIVIC BUILDINGS
— Prime Minister's Better Public Building
Award 2004: Shortlist
— 21st Century Libraries: Changing
forms, changing futures
— Better Public Libraries
— Prime Minister's Better Public Building
Award 2003
— Prime Minister's Better Public Building
Award 2002
— Better Civic Buildings and Spaces
— Building Projects: Your role in achieving
quality and value
CLIENT GUIDES
— Green Space Strategies: A Good Practice
Guide
— Creating Successful Masterplans
— Supplement to Client Guide for ACP
Projects: Selecting a Design Team
— Supplement to Client Guide for ACP
Projects: EC Procurement
— Supplement to Client Guide for ACP
Projects: Planning the Procurement Process
— Supplement to Client Guide for ACP
Projects: The Project Manager
— Supplement to Client Guide for ACP
Projects: The Design Brief
— Client Guide for Arts Capital Programme
Projects
CONSTRUCTION AND PROCUREMENT
— Design and Modern Methods of Construction
— Getting Value for Money from Construction
Projects through Design: How Auditors Can Help
— Creating Excellent Buildings: A Guide
for Clients
— Improving Standards of Design in
the Procurement of Public Buildings
DESIGN REVIEW
— Design Review-ed: Town Centre Retail—Lessons
Learnt from Projects Reviewed by CABE's Expert Design Panel
— Design Reviewed: Masterplans—Lessons
Learnt from Projects Reviewed by CABE's Expert Design Panel
— Design Review-ed: Issue 1
— Design Review: An Introductory Guide
EDUCATION BUILDINGS
— Building for Sure Start
— Client Guide: Achieving well designed
schools through PFI
— Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative—Design
Competition
— Schools for the Future—Designs
for Learning Communities—A DfES Publication
— A Bibliography of Design Value
HEALTH
— The Role of Hospital Design in the
Recruitment, Retention and Performance of NHS Nurses in England
— Healthy Hospitals Report November
2003
— 2020 Vision: Our Future Healthcare
Environments
— Primary Care—Making a Better
Environment
HOUSING
— Design Review-ed: Urban Housing—Lessons
Learnt from Projects Reviewed by CABE's Expert Design Panel
— Housing Futures 2024: A Provocative
Look at Future Trends in Housing
— Shaping Future Homes: Issue 3
— Shaping Future Homes: Issue 2
— Building Sustainable Communities:
Actions for Housing Market Renewal
— Building for Life: A Commitment to
quality from Housebuilders
— Urban Regeneration—The New
Agenda for British Housing—Summary Report
— Shaping Future Homes: Issue 1
— The Value of Housing Design and Layout
— Building for Life Newsletter
— Building for Life Manifesto
— Building for Life: An Introduction
PLANNING
— Guidance on Tall Buildings 2003 (CABE/English
Heritage)
— Local Authority Design Champions
— Safer Places: The Planning System
and Crime Prevention with the Home Office & ODPM
— Local Government Design Survey 2004:
The Results
— Councillor's Pack: A Resource to
Help Elected Members Champion Great Design
— The Use of Urban Design Codes
— Architecture and Race: A Study of
Black and Minority Ethnic Students in the Profession
— Protecting Design Quality in Planning
— The Professionals' Choice: The Future
of the Built Environment Professions
— Building Sustainable Communities:
Developing the Skills We Need
— Moving Towards Excellence in Urban
Design and Conservation
— Planning & Compulsory Purchase
Bill—CABE's position
— Regional Development Agencies and
the Future of Physical Regeneration in England with RICS &
Northumbria University
— Minority Ethnic Students and Practitioners
in Architecture
— Local Government Design Survey 2001—The
Results
— Urban Design Skills Working Group—Report
to the Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration
— Better Public Buildings
— By Design—Urban Design in the
Planning System: Towards Better Practice (with DETR)
PUBLIC SPACE
— Parks Need People Need Parks
— Is the Grass Greener . . . ? Learning
from International Innovations in Urban Green Space Management
— CABE's Expert Design Panel
— A Guide to Producing Parks and Green
Space Management Plans
— Involving Young People in the Design
and Care of Urban Spaces
— Manifesto for Better Public Spaces
— The Value of Public Space
— Green Space Strategies: Making the
Most of Your Parks and Green Spaces
— From Rags to Riches: The Case for
Better Public Spaces
— Streets of Shame—Executive
Summary
— Paving the Way: How We Achieve Clean,
Safe and Attractive Streets
— The Value of Urban Design
REGENERATION
— CABE's Expert Design Panel
— Shifting Sands: Design and the Changing
Image of English Seaside Towns
— Breaking Down the Barriers
— Building in Context (with English
Heritage)
— The Value of Good Design
CABE
— Corporate Strategy 2004-07
— Corporate Strategy 2003-04—2005-06
— The Strategic Enabling Scheme—Local
Authority Expression of Interest
— Make Space: An introduction to CABE
Space
— Thinking Space: CABE Space sets out
a one year work plan
— CABE Introductory Leaflet
— Annual Report 2001-02—Sense
of Place
— Corporate Strategy 2002-05
— CABE Annual Report 2000-01
3. CRITERIA USED
BY CABE'S
DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE
The criteria for whether to comment and for
the allocation of schemes to tiers, in order of importance, are:
— "Significance" in accordance
with DETR consultation letter
— Assessment of extent of need for
and likely usefulness of CABE advice
— Significance in accordance with CABE's
corporate priorities and funding agreements (eg projects in housing
growth areas and housing market renewal areas)
— The fact that the higher the tier
of review, the more thoroughly the scheme is reviewed, and the
more authoritative CABE's views will perceived to be by recipients
— Assessment to ensure geographical
spread of casework
The criteria used in reviewing projects are
set out in CABE's publication "Design Review" and published
on CABE's website. These may be summarised as follows:
— Expertise of the design team
— Suitability of the procurement process
— Adequacy of the project brief
— Analysis of the physical context
— The project in relation to its physical
context, including the public realm and the historic environment
— Masterplanning/site planning.
— Building design (does the building
work; is it sound, durable and sustainable; and does it look good?)
4. EXAMPLE DESIGN
REVIEW LETTERS
Mark Britnell Chief Executive
University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, Queen Elisabeth
Hospital, Main Drive, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Edgbaston
B15 2TH.
12 August 2004
BIRMINGHAM: NEW HOSPITAL PROPOSAL
Dear Mr Britnell
Thank you for coming to the meeting of CABE's
design review committee on the 29 July in connection with this
scheme. We are grateful for the trouble that was taken in preparing
the presentation material and for the presentation itself. Having
considered the scheme in the light of the presentation and the
discussion which followed it, the committee's views are as follows:
We welcome the opportunity to comment again
on the proposals for this significant new hospital development
in Birmingham. We last reviewed this scheme a year ago when it
was one of two bidders and our comments at the time were directed
at the Trust. We are pleased that they have sought to share this
information with the Consort team and that subsequently they have
been given the opportunity to respond to our concerns as well
as those of the local authority. We are encouraged by the continued
interest at a high level within the Trust regarding issues of
design quality.
A hospital of this size and prominence ought
to be an exemplar of the public sector's commitment to high design
standards through the Better Public Buildings programme. It should
be a plausible candidate for the Prime Minister's Better Public
Building Award. We are not yet convinced that it has reached this
standard but we are optimistic that this could be achieved given
enough time for the design detailing and the commitment to quality.
Masterplanning
We are pleased that the time and effort has
been taken to revisit the siting of the initial proposal and that
a masterplan and broader urban design analysis is informing the
design thinking. In particular, the further exploration of the
urban grain, reconciling the grids presented by the existing buildings
and the archaeology, and developing the movement patterns beyond
the site boundary are major steps towards improving the scheme.
The result is a far more convincing project. The improvements
seem to have come about as a result of a number of factors: the
repositioning of the building, the need to reduce the affordability
gap, the additional time allowed for considering the design, and
further consideration of the masterplan layout.
The need to reduce the size of the hospital
in response to affordability issues has, in our view, demonstrably
led to a more comfortable and understandable building. This is
still a vast building, but the necessity to reduce the amount
of accommodation, which was previously causing difficulties in
arriving at a design which worked well, has allowed the architects
to make the function and design of the hospital work for them
rather than against them. We are encouraged that, at this stage,
it is the quantity of accommodation that has been reduced rather
than the aspiration for high quality.
In our view, the organisational diagram and
logic of the layout and adjacencies seems to be working well—this
has not been achieved in some other large hospital schemes we
have seen recently. The use of the topography to separate servicing,
visitors and A&E is a welcome proposition and appears to assist
the management of the clinical adjacencies.
Movement
The proposed movement patterns across and around
the site are now far more convincing. The ability for car drivers
to drop patients and visitors then re-circulate in a clear manner
back to the car park will assist people with way finding. Returning
to the main entrance at grade will lead to the feeling of familiarity
and may help put anxious people at ease. We are concerned that
the distances from the extremities of the car parking to the wards,
via the canopy, the entrance and the hospital street are extremely
long. We wonder whether there is the possibility of allowing access
to the cores B and C of the hospital street or outpatients' corridor
directly from the car park to the south. A possible, more ambitious,
alternative may be to make more use of the roof space above outpatients
to deliver people from the car parking to core B at the same level
as A&E.
We welcome the further work carried out in identifying
and enhancing the main pedestrian and cycle routes across the
site. The model does not yet illustrate these as well as the drawings,
and we reiterate our point made last year that these routes need
to be direct; that the kerb-to-kerb distance of crossings of roads
should be minimised; that where needed, pedestrians should be
given priority over vehicle traffic; and that pedestrian routes
should be well lit and well observed from adjacent buildings.
Landscape
A welcome consequence of the re-positioning
of the building is that there appears to be a more open feel to
the campus and the opportunity for a substantive landscaped area,
rather than a number of incidental "left-over" spaces.
The ability to reorder and enhance the open space gives the proposal
the potential to be something beyond one's normal expectations
of a hospital campus. We welcome the further development of the
landscape design for the area of the scheduled ancient monument,
and note that this is to be a separate commission. We are also
encouraged by the development of a formal hard landscape area
at the entrance to the hospital, linking the new with the existing.
We would wish to see the landscape strategy further developed
to ensure that areas adjacent to Vincent Drive and between the
plaza and the drop off zone are not simply leftover spaces amongst
access roads, but are integral to the network of open spaces.
If handled appropriately these spaces could become useful additions
to the therapeutic environment of the hospital, allowing patients
and visitors to feel that they are able to leave the confines
of the hospital wards, without leaving the site.
Built form
1. Mental health
Most of our concern about the architecture is
directed at the Mental Health buildings. We understand the constraints
imposed on the positioning of these buildings on this sensitive
part of the site and we welcome the way in which the topography
of this site is being used as an asset rather than a constraint
to be engineered away. We also appreciate that the buildings are
designed to be familiar and have a smaller, human scale; the use
of pitched roof to the wards for example.
However, the buildings have the appearance of
having to respond in design terms to too many constraints, without
any underlying ideas that would deal with these. We appreciate
that the site, the schedule of accommodation and the clinical
needs are difficult to reconcile successfully. Unfortunately,
the result is a set of buildings lacking coherence or empathy
with their surroundings—some built elements are curved,
some buildings are "kinked", staircases appear stuck
on and other accommodation seems to "pop out"—the
entrance and reception to the Adult Acute, or the lecture theatre
to the Older Adult Unit, for example. These buildings appear as
if they could be part of the older estate, developed as an accretion
of accommodation, rather than a new and rational set of propositions.
In our opinion, there is a need for coherence and clarity in their
design. For many people, these buildings will form their first
impression of the hospital; their design needs to be improved
to reflect this importance.
2. Acute buildings
We continue to find the shape of the ward blocks
both intriguing and problematic. Our previous concerns about the
nature of the courtyards, the actual level of daylight in some
of the lightwells and courtyards and the potentially relentless
internal curved corridors remain. We are pleased that the atria
are now open to the sky rather than being enclosed with a lightweight
PTFE roof.
This is a very large building with an extremely
large and significant roofscape. The roofs of the wards and the
lower blocks will form a prominent part of the long distance and
close views, and so they need to be considered as a "fifth
elevation" in visual terms. We have some reservations about
the dominant forms of the roofscape of the ward block. Such bold
forms imply something rather grand, perhaps huge spaces underneath,
whereas the actual accommodation is subdivided into quite small
parts; and there is no reflection of the fact that there are large
areas of plant at the upper levels, or of the circulation routes,
which might be top lit at this level. If large parts of the plant
housing require access to fresh air, freely available at this
level but not shown in the scheme, perhaps it would be better
to address this now rather than later and make it a part of the
architecture, rather than something that compromises an architectural
idea later.
Any flues, telecommunications equipment etc
need to be carefully designed and disposed under the control of
the architect before planning permission is granted; and we recommend
that planning conditions closely control such matters. We draw
attention to the importance of illustrating the building's skyline
in near and distant views.
It will be important that the designers do further
work at this stage on the detailed design of the ward blocks,
and the materials to be used. At present it appears as though
the facades of the wards are smooth and curved. In reality the
windows are unlikely to be curved pieces of glass, so the building
is unlikely to have the smooth, continuous surface as illustrated;
there are likely to be reveals and different depths to the panels.
We would wish to be consulted about these materials and details
in due course, as they will have a dramatic effect on the appearance
of the building.
Great care will need to be taken with the design
of the corridor links across the courtyard; they need to be as
light and transparent as possible from the point of view of maintaining
the sense of a single external space in the courtyard, while providing
a comfortable and dignified route for users of all kinds, who
may not want to feel over-exposed to view. The final effect is
almost certain to be less light and transparent than indicated
now so it would be better to own up to this and explore the consequences.
Further thought should also be directed at the
design of the link bridge to the existing hospital buildings.
This will be an important and highly prominent element of the
scheme and if not designed with care could undermine the quality
of the project.
In conclusion, we are pleased that the larger
part of this project appears to be developing in a promising way.
For the promise to be realised in the face of all sorts of pressures
that may stand in its way will require above all continuing commitment
to quality on the part of the client. We would be happy to advise
further on the development of the designs.
Please keep the committee in touch with the
progress of this scheme. If there is any point on which you would
like clarification, please telephone me.
Peter Stewart
Director of design review
cc Dan Smyth Building Design Partnership
Yasim Visram Nightingale Associates
Alex Greenbank Birmingham City
Council
Michael Taylor English Heritage
Declarations of Interest
CABE Commissioner Paul Morrell (not present
at the meeting) has declared an interest: his Cambridge office
are capital and life cycle cost and FM advisers to the NHS Trust
Dr David Nicholson Herefordshire Council Planning
Services, P O Box 144, Hereford, Herefordshire HR4 9ZP.
19 May 2004
HEREFORD: EDGAR STREET GRID
Thank you for coming to the meeting of CABE's
design review committee on the 6 May in connection with this scheme.
We are grateful for the trouble that was taken in preparing the
presentation material and for the presentation itself. Having
considered the scheme in the light of the presentation and the
discussion which followed it, the committee's views are as follows:
We welcome the ambition to regenerate this prime
edge of city area with major mixed-use development. While we are
sympathetic to the aspirations underpinning the development framework,
they seem however to have been lost in translation into the masterplan
propositions.
In our view, too much detail has been proposed
too soon, making it impossible to distinguish between the key
principles and what is merely suggestive or indicative. Before
attempting to draw individual building footprints, we think that
the fundamental development principles should be set out, including
a strategy for phasing and delivery; we support the involvement
of an appropriate delivery vehicle such as an Urban Regeneration
Company. (The CABE publication Creating Successful Masterplans:
A Guide for Clients contains more detailed guidance). This
scheme will be built out over a twenty-year time frame and will
need a clear structure that is robust enough to accommodate future
potential as well as current requirements; while there should
be some idea at this stage who will occupy the proposed buildings
and spaces, the future uses and layouts of the individual development
sites will be largely demand driven. In our view, the following
aspects need further consideration to form the basis of a convincing
masterplan.
Urban Grain
We cannot understand how the structure of the
existing medieval street pattern, with its clear grid of urban
blocks and relationship between fronts and backs, has generated
such a fractured block plan. In our view, the new development
should be based on sound urban design principles; Edinburgh New
Town, where development follows an ordered grid sympathetic to
the scale of the historic core and successfully combines a mixture
of uses, is one example of a successful approach to expanding
an historic city with new building typologies.
Accommodating large food stores within a traditional
grid pattern is challenging and the masterplan must be robust
enough to ensure that the supermarket does not compromise the
proper development and phasing of the whole area; this will be
particularly important if it comes forward as a first phase of
development in advance of other key elements. We are not convinced
that superimposing an out-of-town supermarket plan in a sea of
car parking across an important visual and physical link route
from the new cultural and leisure quarter to the city centre is
the best way to proceed. In our view, the store should not be
seen as an isolated element but rather as part of the overall
fabric; there are plenty of good examples of town centre supermarkets
within the ground floor of an urban block.
Public Realm
We are not convinced that the public realm strategy
as currently proposed is developed enough to structure the masterplan.
The site planning is very loose with too much open space lacking
any sense of enclosure or idea who or what it is for. The built
form around the canal, for example, provides no containment to
the extensive green spaces. Black Friars Gardens bleeds out into
existing school playing fields making unconvincing "heart"
to the scheme. Three car parks leave huge gaps within the study
area; we wonder whether one car park could serve the supermarkets
and stadium. We are not necessarily arguing for a high-density
development, although six units per acre is incredibly low, but
rather strongly defined built edges to contain appropriately sized
spaces. The village high street or Smithfield Market in London
are two different examples of low density development which provide
a successful public realm with defined edges. We think it is essential
to draw a figure ground diagram to show the size and kinds of
spaces proposed in relation to the grain of the city centre, with
the framework of routes superimposed to clarify the important
pedestrian connections.
There is currently no sense of a hierarchy of
routes in the proposals. The importance of historic Widemarsh
Street is suppressed and a new desire line through a supermarket
forecourt played up; if the axis with All Saints Church is significant,
and we do not think that a strategic masterplan should be dependent
on one view, then the tension between this alignment and the supermarket
plan needs to be resolved.
The linkages to the historic core are all predicated
on downgrading the ring road. While we welcome the aspiration
to reintegrate the study area with the city centre, we are concerned
that building a new road to the north will exacerbate the problem
on the three remaining edges, making an island site into a peninsula.
In our view there has to be a much more fundamental solution to
the traffic problem, addressing east-west connectivity and traffic
loading on the A49 and Commercial Road; there may be a case for
suppressing the existing inner ring road rather than building
a new one. Herefordshire Council will need to be robust and realistic
in addressing this constraint that is outside of the immediate
control of the masterplan.
Finally, having identified the poor connectivity
with transport infrastructure as a major constraint, the masterplan
fails to propose an integrated transport strategy which, in our
view, should be fundamental to the scheme.
This scheme has plenty of tactics but no clear
strategy. We encourage the architects to go back to basic urban
design principles and to clarify and simplify their approach.
The CABE publication Design Reviewed: Masterplans contains
more detailed guidance.
Please keep the committee in touch with the
progress of this scheme. If there is any point on which you would
like clarification, please telephone me.
Peter Stewart
Director of design review
cc Mike Smith MacGregor Smith Ltd
John Hewitt Stubbs Rich Architects
Mike Taylor English Heritage
5. LETTER FROM
DETR TO LOCAL
PLANNING AUTHORITIES
To all Local Planning Authorities in England
Tuesday 15 May 2001
ADDITION OF COMMISSION FOR ARCHITECTURE AND
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT TO THE LIST OF NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES
The Royal Fine Art Commission (RFAC) was a non-statutory
consultee for the purposes of planning applications. Following
the winding-up of the RFAC and the creation of the Commission
for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), the Department
has agreed that CABE should become a non-statutory consultee in
place of the RFAC. The present guidance on non-statutory consultation
is set out in DOE Circular 9/95 and in the "Statutory and
Non-Statutory Consultation Report" published by DETR in January
2001. This letter explains the arrangements for consulting CABE.
The non-statutory consultation arrangements
The Government has charged CABE with the promotion
of excellence in architecture and the built environment throughout
England. It is doing this in a number of ways. Reviewing the design
of projects which have been submitted for planning permission
is only one of them. CABE is also devoting a high proportion of
its efforts to becoming involved in projects at an early stage,
helping clients, designers and local authorities to achieve the
best possible quality.
CABE sees design review as an important aspect
of its work and its Design Review Committee meets monthly to consider
proposals. It considers about 30-40 projects a year on the basis
of full presentations and a similar number from submitted papers
and drawings. In addition, CABE can offer informal advice on other
projects on which local authorities consult it.
In view of the limited number of proposals on
which it can advise, CABE wishes to be consulted about projects
which are significant in some way. This is difficult to define
precisely because significance is not necessarily related to the
size of the project, its location or type, but guidance is set
out below. This will be kept under review in the light of experience.
The Government wishes CABE to pay increased
attention to proposals whose significance is mainly regional or
local. This is a wide remit and is concerned not just with metropolitan
centres and historic areas but, for example, with deprived areas,
suburbs, small towns and villages. Design review can be used to
help raise the quality of proposals for buildings and structures
because they have the potential to enhance the quality of people's
everyday lives and promote social inclusion. Such proposals may
include housing schemes, mixed use developments and changes to
public realm.
An important part of CABE's remit is to scrutinise
the quality of buildings in the public sector, in particular those
procured through the Private Finance Initiative, and of projects
involving public money. For this reason, the Department is particularly
interested to see CABE consulted about such projects.
To assist authorities in deciding whether to
consult CABE, the Department has agreed with the Commission the
following guidance on significant projects.
1. Proposals which are significant because
of their size or the uses they contain
This category includes:
— large buildings or groups of buildings
such as courts, large religious buildings, museums or art galleries,
hospitals, shopping and leisure complexes, and office or commercial
buildings;
— infrastructure projects such as stations,
airports and other transport interchanges, bridges, power stations
and waste incinerators; and
— major changes in the public realm
such as pedestrianisation schemes or proposals to enhance public
squares and civic open spaces.
2. Proposals which are significant because
of their site
In this category are proposals which affect
important views—into or from a World Heritage Site, for
example—or are sited in such a way that they give rise to
exceptional effects on their locality. A relatively modest proposal
can be of strategic importance to a town or city if it is situated
at an important street junction, in a square, on a river bank
or on the approach to the urban area.
3. Proposals with an importance greater
than their size, use or site would suggest
This includes:
— proposals which are likely to establish
the planning, form or architectural quality for future large scale
development or re-development;
— proposals which are out of the ordinary
in their context or setting because of their scale, form or materials;
— proposals which are particularly
relevant to the quality of everyday life and contain design features
which, if repeated, would offer substantial benefits for society.
Timing and nature of discussions with CABE
CABE's staff are happy to advise planning authorities
whether they wish to be consulted about a particular proposal.
They can be contacted at:
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London, SE1
7NX. Tel: 020 7960 2400. Fax: 020 7960 2444 or through enquiries@cabe.org.uk.
In line with the recommendations in the report
mentioned in paragraph 1 of this letter, authorities should set
clear deadlines for comment by CABE, as for other consultees,
having regard to the Government's Best Value target for handling
planning applications and to the circumstances of the case.
As well as offering formal advice on planning
applications, CABE is prepared to become involved in some schemes
more closely, offering advice at all stages including the preparation
of the brief and during the design process itself. CABE wants
to contribute to the quality of urban areas in the widest sense
and is prepared not only to advise on landmark buildings but,
for example, housing developments, retail facilities or townscapes.
It therefore welcomes approaches from local authorities and others
at the earliest possible stage, when it will consider and advise
whether it wants to become involved in a project in this informal
way, and whether it wants to review the design of a project formally
at a later stage.
If CABE does not want to become involved in
a project on which it has been consulted it will say so in writing.
In such cases, there is no need for CABE to be consulted formally
again as part of the planning process. In all other cases it should
be notified when a planning application is submitted. However,
whatever CABE's previous position on relevant applications, authorities
should consider notifying CABE if those applications are called-in
by or the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State in case
CABE wants to draw attention to particular issues that might be
considered during the inquiry.
When CABE intends to consider a project in its
Design Review Committee, the developer and designer will be invited
to explain the project. A member of staff, committee member or
both will usually make a site visit. The scheme will then be presented
to the Committee on the basis of drawings, models, photographs
or other presentation materials, by the architect if there is
a formal presentation and otherwise by a member of CABE's staff.
The local planning authority's views are always sought at this
stage. It is usual to invite them to attend full presentations.
The views and advice of the Committee are made
known by letter to the interested parties. Except where a scheme
has been seen at an early stage on a confidential basis, the views
will also be made available publicly, via the CABE website and
in other ways.
Further information about CABE can be found
on its website at www.cabe.org.uk.
Christopher Bowden
Development Control Policy Division
| 
