Memorandum by the British Property Federation
(BPF) (CAB 26)
INTRODUCTION
1. The British Property Federation (BPF)
is the voice of property in the UK, representing companies owning,
managing and investing in property. This includes a broad range
of businesses comprising commercial property owners, the financial
institutions owning and investing in property, corporate landlords,
local private landlords, as well as all those professions that
support the industry.
2. The property industry is a vital component
of a successful economy. As an industry, commercial property contributes
5.6% of UK GDP, which makes it larger than the financial services
industry and combined with residential property, the sector employs
2 million people. In 2001 net investment in productive property
was £45 billion—30% of total investment in the UK.
3. Every day BPF members are making key
contributions to the economic and social well-being of the UK.
Our commercial members provide the workspace for business and
fund the regeneration of our towns and cities. Our residential
members focus on the private rented sector, providing housing
choice to meet the needs of a mobile workforce, a prerequisite
for achieving higher growth in our economy. And our investor members
rely on the performance of £250 billion worth of investment
in property to fund pensions. Just over 20% of commercial property
in the UK is held by UK-based pension and insurance funds, meaning
that most people in the UK have a stake in our industry as pension
fund members.
SUMMARY
1. The Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment (CABE) has proven to be a powerful and successful
body that has improved design quality throughout the country.
2. Worthy of particular praise are the Design
Review Panels that provide a useful function. The expertise and
experience of senior property professionals that make up these
panels aid in bridging the skills deficit that exist within many
Local Planning Authorities. Consequently, it is important these
panels maintain their current level of experience and expertise.
BROADENING THE
APPEAL AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF
CABE
3. CABE has achieved success predominantly
in public sector projects, particularly in recognising the potential
that good design can have in enabling and enhancing the environment
for learning and recovery in schools and hospitals respectively.
CABE are attempting to repeat their success in the private sector
by commissioning research into the business case for better design,
specifically looking at how design can impact on productivity
and value.
4. This is a great opportunity for CABE
to drive this debate forward, and help find definitive answers
to questions that the best minds in the industry have been pondering
for years, but we fear that this opening may be lost. Our concern
is that the vast scale of this project could result in a lack
of focus. This is not only the case in this project but the overall
research wing of CABE. Too many research projects that are compelling
in their importance end up fuzzy and vague. The key to any successful
research work is that the remit does not get `set loose' and the
goals at the start of the project are maintained throughout. Therefore
we would like to see a shift away from quantity to a rigorous
focus on quality, ensuring that the potential for CABE to really
add value is not wasted.
5. At present there is an imbalance in the
allocation of resources and the relative value of the Commission's
functions. Too much time and money is spent on literature, and
whilst this is by and large both attractive and informative, it
does not carry the weight of the Design Review Panels. As stated
above, if the number of research projects and publications were
reduced to ensure a clear and concise message they would be more
useful as a companion to the message and advice delivered by the
Design Review Panels. CABE have commissioned focus groups etc.
to determine how well their publications are received, the results
of which do not appear to have been widely publicised. This begs
the question; are they really considered to be helpful by the
intended audiences? The BPF would like to see the inquiry look
into this and recommend that the money invested in CABE is used
in areas where it will, pound for pound, produce the most positive
results.
DESIGN REVIEW
PANELS: A PLANNING
HURDLE?
6. The Design Review function of CABE is
very important and useful, at present they are just a
consultee, albeit a very influential one. Local Authorities
are not bound to adhere to their decisions but more often than
not they do, and as a result the Design Review Panels are fast
becoming a planning hurdle over which there is no appeal. The
property industry is anxious that although CABE does not have
the statutory power to stop a scheme, their opinion is being treated
as definitive and rigid adherence to it causes delays to projects.
7. As the remit of the Design Review Panels,
and CABE in general, is to assess the quality of design, there
is an inherent danger that individuals with influence that prefer
one school of architecture over another could help create an architectural
orthodoxy. It is important that decisions on the formation of
CABE's policies, specifically on more contestable concepts such
as aesthetic quality, are transparent and that decision about
specific developments from the Design Review Panels clearly follow
these policies.
8. It is this additional risk that CABE
can add to the complex process of development that needs to be
kept to a minimum. This can only be achieved by clearly defining
the role of CABE and the Design Review Panels. Questions that
should be considered by the inquiry as a means of achieving this
are;
— What are CABE to be consulted on?
— When are CABE to be consulted?
— How can CABE's policy formation be
more transparent?
— How can it be assured that one school
of architecture will not dominate the Commission's thinking on
what constitutes `good design'?
— What means should developers and
Local Authorities have for appealing the decisions of the Design
Review Panels?
| 
