Memorandum by the Royal Institute of British
Architects (RIBA) (CAB 16)
INTRODUCTION
The Royal Institute of British Architects is
one of the most influential architectural institutions in the
world, and has been promoting architecture and architects since
being awarded its Royal Charter in 1837. The 30,000-strong professional
institute is committed to serving the public interest through
good design. It also represents 85% of registered architects in
the UK through its regional structure as well as a significant
number of international members. Our mission statement is simple—to
advance architecture by demonstrating benefit to society and promoting
excellence in the profession.
The RIBA welcomes the Committee's inquiry as
an opportunity to state our firm support for CABE at a pivotal
moment in its existence. The RIBA would be very happy to provide
oral evidence or further written evidence if the Committee so
wishes. In the meantime we will answer the Committee's inquiry
terms of reference in turn, together with other observations which
we hope the Committee will find of interest.
CABE'S OVERALL
PRIORITIES FOR
INVESTMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT
CABE has recently undertaken a review of its
own priorities for investment and development. Its corporate strategy
document for 2004-07—"Transforming Neighbourhoods"—notes
the organisation's many successes in its first five years but
recognises the need to focus on fewer priorities and to manage
the expectations of a wide number of clients. CABE will therefore
focus on five priority areas: what makes a good neighbourhood,
homes and streets, green spaces, the learning neighbourhood and
the healthy neighbourhood.
We consider this choice of priorities to be
a sensible one. It chimes well with Government areas of activity
where CABE can make a real difference—for example through
the different strands of the Sustainable Communities Plan or through
influencing the outcomes of major new investment in health and
education.
CABE's strategic review found that it should
continue campaigning and lobbying, with particular emphasis on
public buildings, public spaces and new homes. We agree entirely.
We would consider CABE's role as a champion for high-quality design
within Government to be one of its most effective in its first
five years. CABE has shone a torch into many of the darker corners
of public building procurement, and can take much of the credit
for ensuring that design quality is taken into account by Government
or arms length organisations when commissioning new public buildings.
There remains, however, much to do.
The RIBA is pleased to have been able to work
with CABE to persuade Government of the importance of high quality
design: for example we are currently working together with the
CABE enabling team to build design more effectively into the DfES
Building Schools for the Future programme. We expect this particular
partnership to deliver good results. In recent months we have
also co-operated successfully to deliver changes to the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and remain hopeful that our efforts
to improve the Government's draft Planning Policy Statement 1
will have a successful outcome. CABE are right to say that it
needs to operate strategically with and through others—such
as ourselves—and not to seek to deliver large programmes
on its own. With unprecedented levels of public sector building
investment there remains a major challenge—for example in
the hospital building programme—and we are keen to help
CABE ensure that design quality is central to both Government
thinking and public sector delivery.
As the establishment of CABE Education is relatively
recent, we are pleased to note that CABE proposes to continue
concentrating on this area of activity. The RIBA's own education
and outreach activity has also been given added impetus through
the RIBA Trust. We hope that the RIBA and CABE can build a close
working relationship in this sphere to allow people to gain a
better and deeper understanding of the built environment.
CABE Space is now well-established. Created
following an injection of funding from DETR (now ODPM) to enhance
DCMS grant-in-aid, its work to promote public spaces nicely complements
CABE's other more-established activities. Within a slimmed-down
strategy, it is important that CABE Space is not seen by either
Government department as the "ODPM bit" of CABE and
therefore distinguishable from its other activities. CABE's focus
on neighbourhoods rightly notes that buildings and spaces must
go together. Government, when making future spending decisions,
should also continue to take such a holistic approach to CABE
activity.
THE WORK
OF ITS
DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE
Many RIBA members have submitted schemes for
consideration by the design review committee while others have
served on design review panels. We have drawn upon the views of
several of these members in preparing our comments on this aspect
of CABE's work.
The design review committee has earned considerable
respect among architects and others. The dedication and knowledge
of Paul Finch (until recently Chairman of the Design Review Committee),
design review panel members and CABE supporting staff have been
praised by many RIBA members. We confidently hope that this good
record will continue under Les Sparks.
Clients and architects who have been subject
to CABE design review will usually describe the process itself
as a positive one. The ability to present a scheme in person is
welcome. The assessment can often be robust and occasionally extremely
vigorous. Again this is to be welcomed: most would certainly prefer
to receive criticism at the end of a challenging discussion with
engaged and knowledgeable individuals than be subject to faceless
or uncommunicative obstruction. Most architects who have received
criticism from the CABE design review process have described it
as useful—any such criticism is well-meant and well-founded.
It is frequently minor and architects have felt that subsequent
adjustments to designs have enhanced their schemes.
It is felt that the criteria used by the committee
are fair and consistently applied. It is just as important, however,
to ensure that CABE continues to ensure a balance of opinion on
design review panels. Panels are drawn from a pool of well- and
relatively well-established architects and will naturally reflect
the changing nature of the architectural establishment. In order
to avoid potential criticism that design review favours the fashionable,
it is important, therefore, to have panels representing a range
of architectural styles.
In comparison with the design review work of
CABE's predecessor body the Royal Fine Art Commission, the work
of the design review committee is certainly far more intensive
and varied. In the absence of greater resources for design review
work—which we would certainly support—the committee
should be careful to avoid over-stretch. The committee has occasionally
used informal reviews to overcome its inability to fully review
as many schemes as it would like to, with occasional unintended
consequences. The redevelopment of Camden Town underground station
by London Underground Limited (LUL) is one such example, where
an informal review which was not followed up by a full review
was taken to imply CABE's approval. CABE should make it clearer,
and planning authorities should better understand, that the absence
of a full review or an inability to review does not imply tacit
approval by CABE.
While it has been argued that some local planning
authorities tend to use CABE design review as a fall-back option
instead of fully scrutinising planning applications themselves,
other local authorities have conversely treated the work of the
design review committee rather lightly. The Kings Crescent housing
scheme in Hackney is an example, where the developers and architects
volunteered for scrutiny by CABE in order to secure local planning
authority support for an outline planning application (such support
having previously been withdrawn following changes within the
local planning department). Together with some minor but constructive
criticisms, the scheme won the support of the design review committee
as well as that of English Heritage. Nevertheless, this was disregarded
by Hackney Borough Council, and the developers and architects
feel extremely disappointed that the resulting scheme is a dramatic
watering-down of their original vision. In disregarding CABE and
EH advice, perhaps local authorities should be obliged to give
a clearer account of their reasons for doing so.
CABE'S RELATIONSHIP
WITH OTHER
NATIONAL AND
LOCAL AGENCIES
The RIBA enjoys a very healthy relationship
with CABE. As the voice of the architectural profession, we consider
that our role complements that of CABE as the champion of high
quality architecture and the built environment within Government.
There is a certain degree of overlap between
our respective organisations: a number of RIBA members either
serve or have served as CABE Commissioners while others have served
on CABE design review panels. We consider this to be an entirely
healthy overlap which, together with close co-operation between
CABE and RIBA staff, has contributed to the good relationship
which exists between the Commission and the Institute.
That healthy overlap extends beyond representatives
to our respective roles. CABE's purpose—to demonstrate the
ability of great architecture and urban design to transform people's
quality of life—is very close to the RIBA mission statement.
We work best when we work together, yet there are important differences.
As an independent representative professional body, we are able
to provide advice for and criticism of Government policy which
CABE may feel unable to provide because of the restraints present
upon non-departmental public bodies. CABE is similarly able to
use its independence from the architectural profession to say
occasionally unpalatable things about the profession which the
RIBA—as the professional body—would be unable to do.
We have already mentioned co-operation in terms
of influencing public sector building programmes, planning policy
and education. The RIBA has found CABE a natural partner in ensuring
the future effectiveness of the proposed National Centre for Sustainable
Community Skills.
Since 2002 the RIBA and CABE have jointly sponsored
Building Futures, an over-the-horizon review of the future
needs of society from the built environment and, consequently,
the built environment professions in 20 years and beyond. Building
Futures has held many successful conferences and has produced
searching works by leading built environment thinkers—aimed
at inspiring innovation and influencing policy in the public and
private sectors. Recent examples include 21st Century Schools,
Housing Futures 2024, The Professionals' Choice: the future of
the built environment professions and Riding the Rapids:
urban life in an age of complexity. While we understand CABE's
need to re-adjust its focus, we nevertheless regret that it will
be stepping back from full partnership investment in Building
Futures when the programme reaches the end of its initial
three-year term in March 2005. We are hopeful, however, that the
collaboration will continue where Building Futures targets
areas of particular relevance to CABE's new priorities.
THE FUTURE
ROLE FOR
THE ORGANISATION
The RIBA is in no doubt at all that CABE has
done some excellent work in its first five years and this is more
than enough to justify its continued existence. The comparative
impact within and without Government of the RFAC and CABE is extremely
impressive. As a champion for architecture outside Government,
the RIBA highly values such an effective organisation within Government.
Much of CABE's success in its first five years
is due to the drive and influence of Jon Rouse and Sir Stuart
Lipton as Chief Executive and Chairman respectively. CABE now
finds itself at a pivotal moment in its existence. We look forward
to developing a good relationship with Richard Simmons as the
new Chief Executive. But the appointment of a new Chairman will
set the tone for the organisation for several years to come. It
is a crucial appointment.
In the light of the inquiry by DCMS into possible
conflicts of interest within CABE, there may be some nervousness
about appointing someone with an active professional interest
in the built environment. We hope not, and completely agree with
Sir Stuart's own recent comments that whoever succeeds him as
Chair must have such a current interest, although we would respectfully
add that not all potential chairs need be developers. An active
professional interest is vital if he or she is to secure and maintain
the respect of their peers, Government and many other clients
needed to operate successfully.
CABE cannot function effectively in isolation
and recognises itself that it must work in partnership with others
such as the RIBA. Its sponsoring Government departments remain
vital partners and they should not absolve themselves of responsibility
as design champions within Government as CABE itself continues
to develop. DCMS established CABE, and was instrumental in both
opening Whitehall doors in CABE's first years and in securing
and sustaining ODPM funding for the organisation. CABE have made
the most of this, but need the continuing support of strong Government
patrons if they are to effectively champion design quality to
the rest of the public sector.
CABE is not just an adjunct to the planning
system. It has grown from being a modest NDPB of the DCMS. It
has a real role in driving up standards of design, and public
appreciation of design and the built environment. We look forward
to working in partnership with a trim, focused and well-resourced
CABE in the future.
| 
