|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 1117-i House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee
The Role and Effectiveness of CABE
Monday 1 November 2004 MR ADAM WILKINSON, MR TERENCE BENDIXSON and MR TONY TUGNUTT COUNCILLOR ADRIAN DENNIS and MR PETER BABB MR RICHARD HASTILOW, MS WENDY SHILLAM, MS LIZ PEACE and MR MIKE HUSSEY
MR RORY COONAN HON. FRIBA Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 165
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee (Urban Affairs Sub-Committee) on Monday 1 November 2004 Members present Mr Clive Betts, in the Chair Sir Paul Beresford Andrew Bennett Chris Mole Mr Bill O'Brien Christine Russell ________________ Memoranda submitted by SAVE Britain's Heritage, Chelsea Society and Bloomsbury Conservation Area Advisory Group
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Adam Wilkinson, Secretary, SAVE Britain's Heritage; Mr Terence Bendixson, Secretary, Chelsea Society; and Mr Tony Tugnutt, Bloomsbury Conservation Area Advisory Group; examined. Q1 Chairman: Welcome to the first evidence session of the Urban Affairs Sub-Committee on the role and effectiveness of CABE, and thank you very much for coming this afternoon. For the sake of our records, could you say who you are, please? Mr Bendixson: Terence Bendixson, representing the Chelsea Society. Mr Wilkinson: Adam Wilkinson, Secretary of SAVE Britain's Heritage. Mr Tugnutt: Tony Tugnutt, Chairman of the Bloomsbury Conservation Area Advisory Committee. Q2 Chairman: Would any of you like to say anything brief by way of introduction or are you happy to go straight into questions? Mr Wilkinson: Straight into questions. Q3 Mr O'Brien: In your submissions, in your evidence submitted to the Committee, you are critical of CABE. Would you say that, overall, CABE has made a positive contribution to improving the design of new development? Mr Wilkinson: I would not say that in relation to historic building specifically. There are many examples we have come across where CABE has not taken any cognisance of the surrounding environment with developments, which result therefore in a bad effect on the historic environment in the setting of these buildings. Q4 Mr O'Brien: If there were any changes that you could make, or suggest, in the way that it is operated, what would they be? Mr Bendixson: I think they need more expertise on the Design Review Committee in the fields of building conservation, architectural history, planning, conservation, architecture, those aspects of expertise which do touch on these conservation areas' historic quarters that we represent. Q5 Mr O'Brien: Mr Bendixson, your Society says: "Ways must be found to make the design review process more open." What do you mean by that? Mr Bendixson: We are in the midst of a very interesting exercise at the Royal Hospital, where CABE has been involved and delivered a really excellent review of what the Royal Hospital proposes. So far, the Royal Hospital has not paid any attention to those excellent proposals and so something awful is still about to happen. I think we ask ourselves the question, if CABE had been more open, if CABE had been in a position to make public its views on this important national site and the problems that it sees, might not things have changed rather more quickly? At the moment we may still be heading for a disaster. Q6 Mr O'Brien: On that point, if you are saying that they should have had more consultation, how can CABE work effectively with local amenity societies, resident groups and organisations like yours? Mr Bendixson: I would hope that in future they might invite us to take part in their review deliberations. I would hope too that in cases of national importance they might promote seminars of interested parties in the district where the case occurs. Q7 Mr O'Brien: In your evidence you suggest that sometimes the process of design review can become merely the expression of one group of people's taste over that of another group, or one style over another style, and therefore you could have conflict within an open meeting, as you suggest. How could that be avoided so that the decisions of those discussions were constructive? Mr Bendixson: I do not think the decision would be made at the public meeting. You are absolutely right, different people have different taste and taste might become a dominant theme at a public meeting, but I think it might also tease out all sorts of other, important local knowledge about the appropriateness of a development for a historic site or a historic quarter. Q8 Mr O'Brien: Who should chair such a meeting? Mr Bendixson: CABE. Q9 Mr O'Brien: You say that the conflict which could exist between the various groups should be decided by CABE as to resolving such a conflict? Mr Bendixson: I think we are still talking about CABE's design review and this would be a widened process of design review, but I think therefore that CABE still should be managing it and Chair of it. Q10 Sir Paul Beresford: If CABE took a role that you are suggesting for the Hospital site, is there not a risk nationwide that CABE will start to dictate design and, effectively, overrule local authorities, local individuals, people who are elected locally to make the decisions? Mr Bendixson: I understand your point very well, but I do think that, judging by the experience we have had so far, it is perfectly clear there is a strong distinction between design review, "Is this a good building, is it a building that's fit for its location, is it a building that's going to work?" those questions with which CABE has rightly concerned itself, and then the local authority receives the application after this process has been gone through, that CABE has been involved in, and it says, "Is this a suitable development for our city?" or suburb, or whatever. There is a difference between fitness in design and fitness in development and I think these two stages of the process enable the problem you have identified to be resolved. Q11 Sir Paul Beresford: Do not frighten me. I think it is the other way round. Effectively, the scene is set before the local authority has even touched it, if your suggestion is carried forward? Mr Tugnutt: That is a particular concern that we have, that in fact developers will approach CABE, and it is quite clear from the audit report that far more people are approaching them than really they can cope with adequately. I do not blame developers, because obviously it is in their interests to get CABE on side and so they will have discussions with CABE at a very early stage and then they will approach the local authority and they will already have the comfort of the support of CABE, albeit informally. Effectively, as I said in our evidence, the scheme is sewn up before ever it hits the street. Mr Wilkinson: Unfortunately, in doing this, this is clear in 'Design Review-ed', the document which CABE produced, they are not necessarily paying attention to national policies affecting planning or historic environment, and so the comments they are coming forward with are being used to argue against national policy. They state this quite clearly on page 17 of that document, where they ask the question "Do CABE's views about projects take into account national and local planning policies and guidance, planning and development briefs and so on?" They say: "we are not primarily concerned with evaluating projects against criteria of this kind" and that seems like a fairly arrogant thing to say. It is quite stunning really that a national organisation which has an input into the planning system, an input which is valued by planning authorities, should be able to come up with these comments when everybody else in the system is working within the guidelines set down in policies. Q12 Chris Mole: I think you have covered the ground in terms of the engagement with local people but, in terms of looking specifically at the historic environment, why is that something you will expect CABE to be doing? Should not the contributions from English Heritage and the local authority conservation officers be sufficient to cover that dimension of a development? Mr Wilkinson: I do not think you can look at any development solely in its own right. In this country, every square inch is covered in something historic, somewhere, and much of it is quite valuable, in fact very valuable, and needs to be preserved, but it does not exist alone. That, in itself, acts with the buildings around it and these things need to interact and work together, otherwise you get very sharp cut‑offs, you get townscape which does not work, you get the mistakes of the sixties repeated all over again, this terrible wiping out of town centres. Indeed, we have been involved with a number of quite large cases recently which have seen town centre development which would not necessarily wipe out historic areas but which would have a huge impact on historic areas. If you look at the buildings which are being proposed purely in terms of their design and not just in terms of the surrounding environment, the potential to do damage is enormous. Mr Tugnutt: The consultation letter from the Department says specifically that one of the criteria for referral of cases to CABE is those cases which affect views into or outside a World Heritage Site. I have submitted the CABE minutes of the Effra Tower, and I did that because that 50-storey tower just down the river at Vauxhall would affect this place, it would affect the Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site, views of it, it would appear over Westminster Abbey and above the Cenotaph in views down Whitehall. If you look at those minutes that I have submitted, the World Heritage Site is not mentioned once. It is the Government which has put that responsibility onto CABE to comment but it has proved incapable of doing so. Q13 Chris Mole: It has got those requirements but how do you think CABE could give more weight to the interests of the historic environment? Mr Bendixson: I think really by changing the personnel on the design review panel. I am sure that is a very important step which needs to be made. Perhaps also the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister needs to review its advice to CABE because, for instance, the submission that the Office made to you, and it is in your report, makes no reference to historic quarters, historic buildings, or anything like that. In a way, it seems as if the department is not fully aware of this aspect of CABE's work. Q14 Chris Mole: How do you think it can get access to the expertise it needs on historic environment? Mr Wilkinson: I think it needs only to ask. The expertise is out there in numerous societies and organisations, I am sure they will be all too willing to help. It can also do perhaps with having some expertise at the level of its Commissioners. There are no Commissioners who have expertise in historic environment. There is an archaeologist perhaps but no‑one who deals with the conservation of historic buildings up at the top level of the organisation, and that is quite worrying. Q15 Chris Mole: Looking specifically at Housing Market Renewal Initiatives, there is a prospect of substantial demolition of old residential neighbourhoods. How do you think CABE should balance the interests of the historic environment with its new emphasis on neighbourhoods in its corporate strategy? Mr Wilkinson: There is another factor to count in there, which is hugely important, which is the people who live in these historic neighbourhoods who want to see them preserved. Currently we are dealing with a case in Darwin, in Lancashire, where 150 two‑up/two‑downs, which people live in, own and love, which are 150 years old or so, are threatened with clearance. In those sorts of cases I think there is a real case to go out there and look at what is there, first of all. The people dealing with design review or dealing with the whole Pathfinder policy up there, from CABE's point of view, to go to see these buildings and talk to the local people about their heritage, about the buildings they love and like living in, before starting to work up some new designs for the local authority, which may not have consulted the local people adequately, in many cases they fail to consult them properly at all. Q16 Andrew Bennett: Surely with most of the Pathfinders there is a very obvious problem, is there not? People do not want to live there and that is why they become Pathfinders, because people are moving away, there are very substantial numbers of empty properties, so you have got the evidence of what local people think, far more effective than going to talk to them because people are moving out? Mr Wilkinson: I have to say, if all the cases which we deal with were only ones where people actually wanted to fight these. In all those cases, which so far are about five or six across the North of England, or north of Stoke-on-Trent, at any rate, there are people who live in these areas and who really do want to stay there, and the houses which are empty are owned very often by local authorities and property speculators. The CPRE put together a very thorough report called 'Useless Old Houses' which looked at how you can improve these areas without demolishing historic buildings, and the first thing is to get the local authorities to empty the dustbins once a week, for example. It is the simple things, which are over time. Unfortunately, with Pathfinder, in a few cases it seems they are going for a quick hit at the cash to knock down the buildings and build again. Indeed, the excuse of creating brownfield sites has been used in Liverpool as a reason for demolishing these buildings. Q17 Sir Paul Beresford: Do you feel there is a risk that your position could be taken as criticising CABE because they have a different opinion, therefore you want them to change to fit your opinion? Mr Wilkinson: Certainly that is something which has been levelled at us by Peter Stewart, from CABE, when he wrote to us over the case at Berwick-upon-Tweed, which I highlighted in our evidence. In that case, yes, there was a difference of opinion, but also the reason there was a difference of opinion was because the process by which CABE came to its opinion was flawed, there was no input from historic environment experts. Q18 Christine Russell: Can I ask you, Mr Wilkinson and Mr Tugnutt, do you actually agree with what Mr Bendixson said, which is that everyone serving on the design review panel should be changed? Mr Bendixson: No, not everyone. There should be an enrichment, I think was my point. Mr Wilkinson: Yes, absolutely. I think there should be an enrichment of people on the panel. Q19 Christine Russell: Would you describe what you mean by that? Mr Wilkinson: At the moment, if you look through the list at the back of the 'Design Review‑ed' publication produced by CABE, there is a list of all those who are involved in design review and if you go through the list there is not one person there who has expertise in historic environment. There are architects and engineers and architects. Q20 Christine Russell: Are you saying that architects do not have any interest in the historic environment? Mr Wilkinson: No, I am not saying that. I am saying there are some which do, but none of the ones which are there are ones which are known to us as having any particular interest in the historic environment. I know that they have the good Dr Porphyrios on there, but Dr Porphyrios is a classicist. Classical architecture is a form of architecture, new or old, you can build it, you can look at it, whether it is old or historic, but it does not indicate that he is an expert in conserving historic buildings. Q21 Christine Russell: Who would you throw off? You would throw off these people and who would you put in? Mr Wilkinson: I would put on some architects out there who had experience in the historic environment. Julian Harrop, for example, is one, an exceptionally good, historic environment architect, who deals with historic buildings and their conservation. I would have perhaps a conservation-based engineer on there, someone who understands historic structures and how they work and historic engineering. Q22 Christine Russell: Who would appoint these people? Mr Wilkinson: That is a very good question. You would hope that the Commissioners of CABE, by then we might have one or two who would be interested in the historic environment, might look to do that. Q23 Christine Russell: Can I ask all three of you, where there is a difference of opinion between CABE and the local authority, what should you do about that? Sometimes, obviously, CABE will agree with local people, both CABE and the local people perhaps are unhappy with the local authority's development proposals. How do you see that relationship, how do you really see the way in which CABE relates to local authorities and to local amenity groups? Mr Tugnutt: I think this is the nub of the problem, as far as we are concerned. It is CABE's role within the planning system and I think that really you have to be very careful about bringing aesthetics into the planning system. Government have advised local authorities not to deal with aesthetic matters in great detail and merely control development by their adopted plan policies. I consider, in terms of the planning system, local planning authorities should have primacy in relation to - - - Q24 Christine Russell: If they do not have the in‑house expertise, where are they going to acquire it from, if not from CABE? Mr Tugnutt: I do not think they need the in‑house expertise to make fine architectural judgments about the architectural merits of development. Provided it meets the criteria which the Government set out in relation to general planning policies and policies related to historic buildings, their settings and conservation areas then it should be approved. Q25 Christine Russell: We know that loads of authorities in fact do not have conservation officers, so who is going to give them that advice? Who is going to give the local planning authority that kind of aesthetic advice, if it is not CABE? Mr Wilkinson: They consult the various statutory amenity societies out there, like the Twentieth Century Society on twentieth century buildings and the Victorian Society on Victorian buildings who have expertise in these matters and who can help and do that. Q26 Christine Russell: Do those societies have the capacity to do that? I do not know how many local planning authorities there are, but up and down Britain they would have the capacity to give that advice? Mr Wilkinson: They deal with thousands of planning applications per year. Mr Bendixson: I think our experience in Chelsea is that there have been some bad experiences with CABE but also a good one, and the Royal Hospital, which I have instanced, is that example of a good one. The points that we have made about changing the design review panel, enriching it but continuing to have a CABE focusing on design quality and advising local authorities about design quality and linking in with civic societies, such as ourselves, I see a new pattern emerging there which I think might be better than the present one. Of course it would not avoid all disasters and it certainly would not avoid all of the disagreements that you have instanced, they are bound to go on. Q27 Sir Paul Beresford: Would you encourage local authorities to take CABE's position and advice, which they can choose to take if they wish? Mr Wilkinson: I would say that they should be encouraged where they can choose to take it if they wish, but in many cases it is used as a force by the developers promoting their interests as a reason to override current interests, or other interests, in the planning system and to argue against those. You have to be very careful with that, it is a conflict of interest. Mr Bendixson: That underlines the importance within CABE. The design review process should have a Chinese wall between it and interest in development. Design review should not be about promoting development. Q28 Andrew Bennett: Mr Tugnutt, you said that really CABE should not have a view about the aesthetics of schemes. Is not the whole purpose of CABE though to raise standards, to make sure that you get good quality, modern buildings as opposed to some of the rubbish that went up in the not too distant past? Mr Tugnutt: It is, but I think it is very difficult for us to reach a judgment on that, particularly on an unbuilt building. You can make an assessment of a building once it has been constructed. Q29 Andrew Bennett: It is a bit late then, is it not? What do you do, go round knocking down the failures? Mr Tugnutt: It is, but equally it is dangerous to be persuaded by exaggerated claims for architectural excellence. For instance, the Shard of Glass was approved by the Deputy Prime Minister because he was absolutely convinced about the architectural quality of that building, and that is an area with which the planning system, up to now, has not really got involved. Provided it meets the planning policies, which of course include aesthetic and design issues as well, provided it meets the broad policy then really the view of an unrepresentative body should - - - Q30 Andrew Bennett: Wait a minute, there is a separate issue of them being unrepresentative, which I will come on to, but the question is, is it not a laudable aim to try to get much higher standards in the buildings that are going up? Mr Tugnutt: Absolutely, yes. Q31 Andrew Bennett: They have got two functions then, have they not, they have got promotion, which ought to be going for the best, and they have got assessment? Do you see a conflict between those two? Mr Tugnutt: Potentially, yes. Q32 Andrew Bennett: Then how do they separate it out? Mr Bendixson: We had some experience of that at South Kensington. It is just outside our patch but we were heavily involved because the development was going to be visible from Chelsea. That development was one which CABE reviewed and, at the same time, urged it forward and said it was an extremely good development, not an extremely good design, they emphasised that it was a good development. It seemed to us at the time that they were going over the boundary within which their design review panel should have been working. Q33 Andrew Bennett: There have been significant changes at CABE. Have they gone far enough? Mr Wilkinson: I am not quite sure what the changes are. We have lost Sir Stuart Lipton and that is about it, so far, really, is it not? I cannot see what else really has changed since then, in terms of personnel. Q34 Andrew Bennett: What should have changed then? If you are critical of it, should other people be going? Mr Wilkinson: I think that when people start having interests in schemes and they are blatantly clear they are interested in schemes, you should be careful about that, and recommendations were made in the audit which should be followed through. One has to be concerned about the role which people play within CABE. I, for one, have been concerned about the role Paul Finch plays both on the editorial side, working for the Architects' Journal, and also working on the design review side of things. Is there a conflict there? That needs to be looked at very carefully, for starters. Q35 Andrew Bennett: Are you going to get anybody in this sort of area who does not have a conflict of interest? Mr Wilkinson: I think if you have conflicts they can easily declare them, and should do so. Q36 Andrew Bennett: As long as you declare it, everybody knows. Is that sufficient? Mr Wilkinson: If it is minuted and the person does not get involved in discussions about that scheme then that can be fair enough, I would have thought. Q37 Andrew Bennett: No discussions about the scheme. You are actually ruling out somebody who may have a great deal of expertise about a particular scheme and saying they should be ignored because there may or may not be a financial interest in the scheme? Mr Wilkinson: Absolutely. They should be cleaner than clean, yes. Mr Bendixson: I think, if the design review panel is instructed literally and very specifically, presumably by the ODPM, to stick to design issues and to make known to the local authority that it thinks this is a good example of design, for the following reasons, and then leaves the local authority to decide whether it is a good development - - - Q38 Andrew Bennett: You are saying that you can have the separation of promotion from assessment? Mr Bendixson: Within the design review process, yes. I think in other aspects of CABE's work they are going to be promoting like anything, but within design review - - - Q39 Chris Mole: Can I just pursue that with you, because you have said throughout that the design needs to be seen in the context. How can you separate the design from the development, because the development is the context in which the design sits, surely? Mr Bendixson: In our case, the context is, for instance, at South Kensington, where use of nineteenth century terraces and crescents and squares, of that sort of thing, - - - Q40 Chris Mole: That is a broader context. What I am suggesting is that you cannot separate the design from the development with a Chinese wall, because as well as the wider context you have got the context of the development as a whole in which the design sits, surely? Mr Bendixson: In my view, I think you can, because the development, for instance, is it a mixed development or is it a hotel rather than an office, those are aspects that the local authority is going to be dealing with. CABE might well think that a building that was a hotel was extremely well designed and suited to its context, it might then be turned down by the local authority because they wanted an office there. There is the distinction between design and development. Q41 Chairman: One of the things which have been put to us is that it is alright to wrap CABE as though it was an organisation which always came up with a consistent view of life, but it depends very much on who you happen to get on the design review panel as to what answer you get. Therefore, there is a problem of consistency, in terms of different views and the different styles of architecture and who is actually on the panel. Is that a problem which you have come across? Mr Bendixson: Certainly we have noticed that, over the history of particular schemes, where, quite rightly, CABE has been invited to come back on several occasions over a period of two years, the same people were not on the review panel for successive meetings. Clearly that is a problem. Q42 Sir Paul Beresford: Is it a problem or is it the other way round? CABE is an advisory panel and what you are getting is different thoughts from different experts, which makes the scenario fun, or exciting, and gives us an opportunity to develop and broaden instead of building the same old thing? Mr Wilkinson: How can that be helpful for the developer, getting different advice in stages and inconsistent advice? Q43 Sir Paul Beresford: It is advice to the developer, advice to the local authority and, at the end of the day, it is a decision made by the local authority on what the developer wishes to put forward, surely? Mr Bendixson: No. It is no different really from the role of the architect of a particular scheme. If the development at the beginning of the scheme had one architect and halfway through another architect and at the end a third architect, it would be bound to be a dog's breakfast. There is bound to be a tendency, if CABE's panel changes over the course of its advice, for there not to be continuity in that advice. Q44 Sir Paul Beresford: It will be exciting and new? Mr Bendixson: I do not see how you can think it is going to be exciting. I think it is just going to be a muddle. Chairman: At that point, we have to bring this session to an end. Thank you very much indeed for your evidence. Memoranda submitted by Croydon Council and Manchester City Council Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Councillor Adrian Dennis, Croydon Council; and Mr Peter Babb, Head of Planning, Manchester City Council; examined. Q45 Chairman: Welcome to the Committee. Thank you for coming. For the purposes of our records, could you identify yourselves, please? Cllr Dennis: I am Councillor Adrian Dennis, from the London Borough of Croydon. Mr Babb: Peter Babb, Manchester City Council. Q46 Chairman: Thank you for that. Is there anything you would like to say by way of introduction, or are you happy to go straight to questions? Mr Babb: We are happy to go straight to questions. Q47 Chairman: Councillor Dennis, I think probably you might have expected that your evidence and appearance before us has caused some degree of interest. Could I begin by putting the point to you that much of your evidence is based around one particular development and your concerns over some conflict of interest that might have been involved there. Given that we have had an independent investigation, an independent report, about that issue, that Sir Stuart Lipton is no longer the Chairman of CABE and CABE says they have acted on the recommendations of the report, is it not time now to draw a line under that and move on and look at how we go into the future? Cllr Dennis: I am afraid not. That particular site in question, it is called the Gateway site, drew my attention to conflicts of interest which existed on CABE, which I was not aware of before. It has raised issues, I think, of probity and the way that CABE operates. It is perceived as a public body. Maybe that is what it is. Q48 Chairman: "Operates" or operated, we had better be clear about this, because CABE says it has moved on, taking account of the recommendation in the report? Cllr Dennis: The fact that the Chairman has gone has not changed anything. There is still a very large proportion of the CABE Commissioners associated with one particular company, and I expect, if you looked at other development interests, there would be again a number of conflicting interests. Also I feel that there are issues which have happened since which have further connections among the Commissioners with that particular company, Stanhope, and the way that the members of the Commission do not fully appreciate their role as a public body, that they cannot carry on acting as independent architects and architectural journalists expressing strong views, promoting a particular development, when they are actually commenting on the design of that development. Q49 Sir Paul Beresford: Councillor, if Croydon Council applied to itself for planning permission, there would be these Chinese walls, etc., yes? Cllr Dennis: Yes. Q50 Sir Paul Beresford: Thank you. The same applies to CABE, and in fact there was an audit investigation and the summary of the audit was essentially that these principles, the Nolan Principles, had been applied by CABE, and the majority, if not all, of the recommendations, as I read them, were really on making sure that the public outside could see that this actually applied. Am I right? Cllr Dennis: Certainly there are very strong recommendations there which must be applied, in my view. I am not sure that they have been yet. Q51 Sir Paul Beresford: What bothers me, with your report to the Committee, is that, in fact, there is a conflict of interest. You personally wish the scheme preferred by Croydon, and I think it is called the Arrowcroft scheme, to go ahead, but Croydon Council do not own the land, the land is owned by the people who are putting forward the Gateway site, the Gateway Partnership? Cllr Dennis: That is not entirely true. We are talking about slightly different sites. The Arrowcroft scheme, which does have the support of the Council, includes land which currently the Council owns, it would be about 11 per cent of the total site area. The Stanhope/Schroders claim to own the site, my understanding is that they own about 12 per cent, or so, and have options on quite a lot of the rest. My terminology might be incorrect, about calling it an option, but they have some sort of contractual arrangements where they can take ownership should they get permission. Q52 Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that actually they own 100 per cent, apart from the 11 per cent you are talking about, but you are talking about a bigger scheme? Cllr Dennis: That is not my understanding and it is not the understanding that we were given by their solicitors, who happen to be CABE's solicitors, only in September. Q53 Sir Paul Beresford: For Croydon Council to go ahead, they are going to need to purchase the land compulsorily? Cllr Dennis: Yes. Q54 Sir Paul Beresford: My difficulty is that I see this has become a personal battle between you and one or two people on CABE. Sir Stuart Lipton, until he departed, is a classic example of someone that you really have a personal battle with? Cllr Dennis: Not really. I have a problem with the way they operate. In fact, we were very pleased that Stuart Lipton, in his first years as Chairman, actually came to Croydon and presented the Croydon Design Awards with myself. We have the greatest regard for CABE in many respects and think they do really good work, in terms of promoting improvement of design. Yes, I did have an issue with the way that they bypassed the planning system and went straight to an inquiry with a development which we had not seen before. They managed, quite cleverly, to find their way to get a planning application straight to a public inquiry without it having been submitted as an application, by replacing an application which existed already. Q55 Sir Paul Beresford: I just happen to have been given the Croydon Gateway report that you gave to your Labour group. It is quite abusive, it is personally abusive. I find it quite extraordinary. Cllr Dennis: I am not quite sure which report you mean. Q56 Sir Paul Beresford: It is the report that went to the Labour group on 5 February this year and it says: "These so‑called blue-chip developers have acted like irritable children when their toy has been snatched from them, whining and screaming to the press and anyone else who will listen." Then it goes on to name a number of individuals, including Sir Stuart, but naming him with a rather abusive phrase, which I will not use, and others that have resisted or not agreed with you also get abusive names applied to them? Cllr Dennis: You would call it abusive. If you like, I was putting a light touch to the report to my members about what happened at a public inquiry and the actual results, which was confusing for many people who are not familiar with planning reports. I made an interpretation and expressed, in fact, what was the real outcome of that inquiry. Q57 Sir Paul Beresford: Calling one of the individuals, that I have not named, "Mr Slime" and another one "Mr Dud" does sound as though you - - - Cllr Dennis: You are referring to an internal, political report and you are referring to some references which are sort of jokes between the two political parties on the Council. Q58 Sir Paul Beresford: Then it comes back to the situation that if this particular organisation, the Gateway Partnership, put in an application really they are wasting their time, are they not? Cllr Dennis: We are still talking to them. We have actually had a meeting, certainly within the last two weeks, whether it was last week or the week before I am not sure, and I believe there is a further meeting next week. We are still negotiating and trying to get a resolution to this problem because we do not want to be at loggerheads with Stanhope/Schroders. There is a potential solution between themselves and if they were able to discuss a development jointly with Arrowcroft which satisfied everyone, but we do have a policy of providing a mixed‑use development based on an Arena scheme. They are moving now a little way towards that but there are still opportunities maybe for their consultants and our consultants to go into a locked room and sort themselves out. Q59 Sir Paul Beresford: You are in a position where, certainly by the paper, you have got some personal difficulties with individuals, you want an Arena on the schemes and really you want Arrowcroft to do the development, so that, in essence, anyone else putting in an application, including the people that own the land, is wasting their time? Cllr Dennis: We sought for a long time the development for that site with the landowners. That never happened. The site has been empty for 40 years. There were conflicts between the landowners. We made every effort, we brought in master planners to try to find a solution and we then looked for a development partner, it turned out it was Arrowcroft. They have put in a planning application which complies with our policies and our development plan and we have made a resolution to grant permission for that. Q60 Sir Paul Beresford: In essence, the answer is, yes, in short? Cllr Dennis: That does not rule out the fact that another planning application coming in which met the policies would be approved. Sir Paul Beresford: I would not want to bet on it. Q61 Chris Mole: I think, somewhere in there, we got the message that CABE was working well with local authorities in some aspects of their work, certainly in relation to improving the quality of urban design. Is that something with which generally you would agree? Cllr Dennis: I think they have been a positive factor in promoting good design. Q62 Chris Mole: Would you agree with that, Mr Babb? Mr Babb: I would certainly agree with that, and I think what I would say is that CABE is important in terms of how we deal with design on a national basis. Certainly Manchester City Council is very keen on driving up the standard of design quality, and certainly that is something that CABE try to do nationally. We work fairly effectively with them, I think, on schemes that come before us. Q63 Chris Mole: In the evidence from Manchester, you said that CABE's kind of 'critical friend' approach is more successful than an adversarial approach in encouraging higher aspirations and improved design. How do you see this 'critical friend' approach working and how could CABE develop it more, in order to avoid conflict? Mr Babb: It is hard for me to answer, in some respects, because we have not had much conflict with CABE, if any at all, unlike maybe the Royal Fine Art Commission at times, the predecessor organisation. I think a lot depends on the approach of the organisations and the respect they have for one another, seeing how they work and can work together into the future with mutual benefits. I think there is a need though for assumptions and issues to be challenged. That is part of the review process. That is a very important part of the process. I can look at how we deal with design issues locally. We have a Conservation Areas and Historic Buildings Panel of local membership. We have English Heritage, who are regionally-based but based in Manchester. They have a view. They can take views on a more national basis as well. When it comes to design, I do believe that sometimes it is very good to have an independent assessment of a design which comes forward and I think they can raise issues which maybe have not been thought about because they are outside of that local context. Q64 Chris Mole: You are quite clear in your own mind that this is evidence which you can take or leave but you would certainly take into account in reaching a conclusion? Mr Babb: As a local planning authority we have to make judgments on what a number of consultees have to say. CABE are a consultee, English Heritage are and a wide number of other people. Basically, it comes down to a local planning authority making those judgments, at the end of the day, apart from those schemes where there would be a referral to the Secretary of State, in which case other judgments will be made by other people about whether a scheme needs to be called in for determination. Q65 Chris Mole: Do you think there is anything that CABE can do specifically to create a constructive working relationship with a local authority where the design review panel and the local authority seem to have a fundamental difference of perspective about the appropriate use of a site? Mr Babb: In terms of particular sites, obviously sometimes some sites have particular histories, which local authorities might know better than CABE. I think, with CABE though, it is a question of engaging them so that they understand the issues involved and how you might be able to work to understand the views of the various parties involved. Ultimately, I think CABE should not be unduly influenced by what a local authority might think, because that would reduce their independent role. Q66 Andrew Bennett: CABE was supposed to be raising urban design standards. Can you think of an example of a big shopping scheme within Greater Manchester which CABE have influenced beneficially? Mr Babb: I would need to think about that one. Q67 Andrew Bennett: Crown Point North, for instance, in Denton? Mr Babb: I am not aware of that scheme, I am afraid. Q68 Andrew Bennett: Come on. Give me some examples of where in the last three years CABE has influenced anything in Greater Manchester for the good? Mr Babb: I would look to Manchester. I can really only draw from Manchester, from my point of view. We have worked constructively with CABE over a number of proposals within the City, going back really to the redesign of the City Centre, following the terrorist bomb in 1996. Q69 Andrew Bennett: That was before CABE, was it not? Mr Babb: It was, but I think during that period, and of course the City Centre was not reconstructed overnight, we engaged with CABE when they were the successor body to the Royal Fine Art Commission and I do believe they have had a positive influence in terms of how we spread the regeneration benefits through the rest of the City. I think about Spinning Fields, a very major scheme in the City Centre. I think CABE have commented on that positively but there has always been discussion. Q70 Andrew Bennett: They commented positively. It was poor before they got involved and they improved it? Mr Babb: I believe that CABE have an important role in challenging, say, masterplans which are put forward for areas and schemes which then come forward. A lot of the time, and it is probably about the way in which the City Council works, we work very much in the spirit of partnership with landowners, so when it comes to masterplans there is already a shared vision. Therefore, maybe the job of CABE is made a little bit easier because it can understand where the parties are coming from, but it can still intervene positively, I think, to influence schemes for the better. We have had schemes within that Spinning Fields area which have gone to CABE and we have taken notice of comments which have come back and we have acted upon them. Q71 Andrew Bennett: How do we avoid this conflict of interest between some of the members within CABE being developers, in a sense, or working for developers and them coming up with objective advice? Mr Babb: I would have thought, in the design review sessions, if there are conflicts of interest they need to be registered and those people who have the conflicts of interest should not take part in the debate and probably should not be in the room either. Q72 Andrew Bennett: You exclude people from the discussion, but there is what someone has an interest in today and there is what they may have an interest in next week. That is a relatively small circle of people, is it not, so is there not a danger that what you say in one of those panels may influence whether you get work in the future? Mr Babb: An interesting point. I do not think that I can answer that question, I am afraid, apart from saying that if CABE is to do its job nationally then maybe it should think seriously about how it conducts its business in those design review meetings to retain the level of expertise but to try to get around any issues which might occur because of conflicts of interest and probity. Q73 Andrew Bennett: Is that really being transparent so that everybody involved, not only in those reviews but who may be coming to a planning inquiry in the future, knows exactly where everyone is coming from? Mr Babb: I think really these are issues for CABE to consider and then to put forward an idea of a strategy to deal with these issues. I do not think it is up to me to decide how CABE is likely to react into the future. Q74 Andrew Bennett: It is not up to you, but it might help this Committee if we got some advice as to how to deal with it, rather than simply just saying "Well, it's up to CABE to come up with solutions"? Mr Babb: I have a degree of respect for CABE, which means that I would leave to them the idea that if they want to make sure that processes are transparent then they need to come up with a strategy for doing all of this and which can be debated in full with those who need to be involved in such discussions. Q75 Sir Paul Beresford: Does it not really put CABE in a difficult position? They want top people there, giving top advice, there is a small group from which they can select and yet they are laying themselves open to be sniped at, because of exactly the points that Mr Bennett was making? Mr Babb: I understand what is being said, but I think, if we are going to have a national body with expertise, probably there are not too many ways around this and maybe you have to accept what you can achieve through best practice. I believe that does mean that CABE has got to give serious consideration to how it handles its business, if that is seen to be something which needs to be addressed. I am afraid that, from my point of view, I have not been aware of all the issues which have been raised at this meeting, therefore I have not given it any thought before this meeting, apart from the fact that I think, with any system where views are given and views that can be acted on, there should be transparent processes which are understandable and which can be subject to scrutiny. Q76 Mr O'Brien: Can I press you on the question of design by CABE. When CABE reviews designs for new development, how flexibly should it apply its criteria, have you a view? Mr Babb: I think it is important that CABE understand the context within which schemes are being developed. Of course, we should not go along with the notion that one size fits all, so they should have an awareness of what a scheme is trying to do within the context of the local area within which that scheme is being developed. Q77 Mr O'Brien: We have had submissions to the Committee which raise concerns that the criteria are applied too flexibly, with not sufficient transparency. How should CABE address this kind of situation? Mr Babb: In meetings of the design review, there will always be views put forward by the number of people who make up that design review. I think then it is a question of CABE trying to make sure that the comments are distilled into those comments which they believe that the developer and the local planning authority should take into account and there is a responsibility there to make sure that advice is clear and concise. Q78 Mr O'Brien: If the organisations involved with property development are questioning the criteria, maybe particularly from an aesthetic point of view, and there could be a division between the people involved with the development and CABE, how should that be addressed? Mr Babb: I think, if there were differences in view, I would come back to the role of the local planning authority which has to take into account the views of CABE and other parties through consultation on planning applications. I think the important thing though, and this is part of the planning process we operate within Manchester, pre‑application discussions and trying to make sure that CABE see schemes at an early stage, rather than at an advanced stage, where probably it is easier to take on board comments which might be seen to be in the best interests of a scheme. That can be helpful not only to a local planning authority but obviously to the developer as well, because we find that many developers are interested in improving the design schemes if they are given the chance. Q79 Sir Paul Beresford: Do you always take CABE's advice? Mr Babb: As a local planning authority, we take advice, we see the advice and we have to make judgments about the weight given to that advice, as we would do with English Heritage, and take into account national planning policy guidance and development plan policy and other material considerations as well. Q80 Chris Mole: That takes me nicely to what I want to ask you. Do you think CABE gives sufficient weight to the interests of the historic environment, or do you think they are a bit cavalier in their attitudes towards it, or do you think it is your responsibility to take what they give you and then what English Heritage say alongside that? Mr Babb: My impression is that CABE do have an understanding of the historic environment in the context within which schemes generally are developed. Part of the onus sometimes though is on the local planning authority and the developer to ensure that contextual position is put across at meetings. I do think that, in looking further at this, the local planning authority itself obviously consults with English Heritage and it has to make judgments, again, about the weight to be accorded to those comments which come back. Ultimately, it is the local planning authority's responsibility to try to weigh those judgments and determine the scheme. Q81 Christine Russell: I am sorry, Councillor Dennis, all these questions now seem to be going to Mr Babb, because I am going to ask him a question. You have been very positive about CABE, from a Manchester City Council point of view, but reading your written submission you seem to have a kind of implied criticism of the relationship almost, or the input, that CABE has with the design of public buildings which probably are commissioned by the Government. I think you refer particularly to health and education. Bearing in mind that actually you give the final consent for new schools, new hospitals, or whatever, could you just elaborate on what you mean by those comments, where you seem to imply that CABE needs to do more to drive up the standards of the design of our public buildings? Mr Babb: I think what we said was that CABE has been less successful, in terms of this discussion, with certain government departments. Building schools for the future, I think, is an example, whereby if we are looking for top quality schools for the future there was an initiative about exemplar schools. Unfortunately, there does seem to be a little bit of a funding gap. I think it is important in those discussions that affordability issues are taken into account in terms of trying to look at design quality as well. It is all very well driving up aspirations if we cannot deliver those at the end of the day. I think it is particularly important that CABE are given sufficient opportunities to have good discussions with government departments at an early stage to ensure that there is the possibility of good design within the building programmes which are coming forward in education and in the health services as well. Q82 Christine Russell: The message should go back, rather than going back from the LGA it should go back from CABE to the Government that more money is needed in order to improve the design, is that what you are saying? Mr Babb: I think, very often, unfortunately, programmes are set maybe before some of the issues are looked at, in terms of detail. When you start to look at design, design can have an effect on driving up the amount of money which is needed to produce schools and hospitals. Q83 Christine Russell: In your experience, does quality of design necessarily cost more money? Mr Babb: It need not cost more money but I think it depends on what assumptions are being fed into the processes in the early stage about how much per square metre of building can be afforded. Q84 Chairman: Just to follow up one issue now about the possibility of CABE going into neighbourhoods in the North, particularly the Housing Markets Renewal Pathfinder areas. Have you got any concerns that people who are more used perhaps to working on grand projects in London might get a bit of a culture shock when they venture into parts of the North, where they have probably never been before, to have a look at the architecture there and what might be done with it? Mr Babb: In terms of our regeneration areas, Housing Market Renewal, Pathfinder, we have engaged with CABE at an early stage, and in fact they have engaged with us at an early stage of East Manchester, when the urban regeneration company was set up, we had a briefing with members of CABE. They understand the issues that we are facing and are very ready, willing and able to help us further, in terms of what we might need to ensure that we have good house-building programmes into the future. In terms of North Manchester, the regeneration strategy there, there was a steering group to oversee that and a member of CABE was actually on that steering group. We have taken very positively what CABE have said to us about wanting to be involved and to help and assist where they can, in terms of the massive programmes that we are looking at, to improve housing within Manchester. Q85 Chairman: Is this mainly about house design, as such, building houses, or is it about wider issues and neighbourhood and environment? Mr Babb: I do not think you can look at just house design in terms of sustainable neighbourhoods into the future. I think really it is looking at a holistic approach, and CABE, certainly in terms of the future work that they see, so that has been very important. Liveability is very important to the sustainability of our neighbourhoods. It is not just about design, it is about all the other facilities that are needed to sustain communities but also about how you put together the overall masterplan and then look at the individual designs mainly of homes. There are some fairly interesting issues there, in terms of how we want to make sure that into the future we can influence house design from necessarily what the volume house-builders want to do but also what we feel actually is right for areas. There needs to be a variety of choice but I think CABE can help and assist in terms of what we need to be looking at for the future. Chairman: Thank you both very much for coming to give evidence. Memoranda submitted by Royal Institute of British Architects and British Property Federation
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Richard Hastilow, Chief Executive, and Ms Wendy Shillam, a RIBA member practising with Shillam & Smith, Royal Institute of British Architects; and Ms Liz Peace, Chief Executive, and Mr Mike Hussey, Managing Director London Portfolio, Land Securities, British Property Federation; examined. Q86 Chairman: Welcome to the Committee. Could you identify yourselves, for the sake of our records, please? Mr Hastilow: I am Richard Hastilow from the Royal Institute of British Architects. Ms Shillam: I am Wendy Shillam from the Royal Institute of British Architects. Ms Peace: I am Liz Peace and I am Chief Executive of the British Property Federation. Mr Hussey: I am Mike Hussey. I am Managing Director of Land Securities' London Portfolio. Q87 Chairman: Thank you for coming. Is there anything you want to say by way of a brief introduction or are you happy to go straight to questions? Mr Hastilow: I am quite happy to go straight to questions. Ms Peace: We are happy to go straight into the questions. Q88 Chris Mole: I wonder if you might tell us what you think has been CABE's greatest achievement in its first five years? Mr Hastilow: I think, driving up the emphasis on the understanding of design quality, both from inside Government and in the wider range of clients, be they local authorities or other public sector or private sector, and really to raise the game. Ms Peace: I think we would second that. We find the design review function, by and large, an extremely useful one. I think probably we will get on to further questions in a moment about whether perhaps in some ways it goes too far, and I think we need to examine the issue as to its formality, where it occurs and the actual development process and how it can be most usefully employed. There is absolutely no doubt that CABE has fulfilled a very useful role in terms of driving up standards. Q89 Chris Mole: Before we get into that pragmatic sort of stuff, how better do you think urban design could be incorporated into the planning, design and development processes? Ms Peace: I think I would like to defer to my colleague here, who actually runs a very large portfolio, because I think it might be useful for the Committee to hear a little bit about how design is incorporated into the development decision process. Mr Hussey: We are at one end of the spectrum, in terms of being the largest property company in the UK, but the question obviously is aimed at a much wider audience and participants than just ourselves. We take the whole process extremely seriously because most of our activity is fairly large-scale, it requires a lot of investment to get through the planning process, and therefore all of the urban design issues and the way in which we consult and we involve others in the field are extremely important. Right down at the other end of the scale, perhaps smaller developments, you have a need for a little bit more structure and input in terms of the way urban design is brought forward, and the sense of responsibility that we feel may not be the same through the whole planning process. I think our feeling is that it is extremely important, but the way in which you try to frame it for a much wider audience is the key. Ms Shillam: Sometimes, when you get to the point of a planning application, it is actually almost too late really, in a lot of cases, to bring in urban design and the decisions which get made often by default a long way behind. That is why I think planning authorities and CABE have a really important role in being proactive about design and urban design, so that we have a lot of these discussions before an application goes in, when we are thinking about the design of an area as a whole when actually it is much easier to have these discussions and not to make them contentious. CABE's role as an enabler is a really important one, we think, and as important, if not more important, is their role of reviewing designs and planning applications as they come in, where the ability for things to change, by necessity, is limited. Q90 Chris Mole: Do you think that CABE take the historic environment sufficiently into context in their decisions? Ms Shillam: Yes, I think they do. Their remit is to look at design and I think they have been relatively straightforward in looking at design. There are other organisations and statutory organisations, like English Heritage, whose remit is to deal with conservation and I think that balance between CABE and English Heritage actually has worked out quite well. Q91 Andrew Bennett: They have been going for five years. Ought they to be much more focused now on what they are doing and their priorities? Ms Peace: I think our general perspective on that would be that, in terms of focus, we would like to see them spending more effort on design review, and not necessarily design review at the planning application stage but very much, as my colleague has said, on pre-application discussions. They spend a lot of their resource, or have done over the last five years, in commissioning research and producing publications. I feel we have got almost to the point of saturation, with regard to research and publications. I think there needs to be a consolidation of the good advice that is all sitting there and that now they could usefully use their resource to do a greater number of advisory discussions in the pre-application phase. Mr Hastilow: I think the focus is developing quite naturally, if we can recognise that the whole programme of sustainable communities is the biggest challenge for all of us, from wherever we are in society, over the next 15 or 20 years. Out of that, it falls that CABE can make a particular contribution in the enabling, first of all, and then in the upskilling, assisting there, with a clear focus on what is needed to regenerate areas. It does that with others, like us, and universities and schools. Then on design review and in the whole focus on the neighbourhood side dealing with not only the quality of the housing but also the green spaces. It seems to me there is a set of targets there which make quite a good focus and, I would imagine, would keep CABE pretty busy with all the resources that they can be given over the next five or ten years. Q92 Andrew Bennett: On this pre-application appraisal, is there not a danger that the general public and the people who might object to a scheme, or want something slightly different, feel excluded from that part of the process? So that you feel it is almost a fait accompli, because CABE has discussed it with everybody and now CABE is putting its seal of approval on it, so, tough, that is what you are going to have to accept? Mr Hussey: I think there is a presumption there that there is a hurdle that everybody has to get over with CABE, as part of the planning process. I think that was neither the intention, specifically, nor is it how particularly major developers see CABE. I think we feel that, as Liz said, there is a definite preference to involve and deal with CABE and participate in the debate at the earlier stages, just from a sense of getting some sort of guidance as to how the scheme will evolve. The whole process of the local community consultation, dealing with the local planning authority in the usual way, still is part of the process and I do not think that we would see anybody being excluded. What it does avoid is a lot of expense and time, going through a design process which consequently is criticised or changed as a result of consultation by the local planning authority with CABE, and that costs us time and money. I would encourage them, in fact we actually foster the relationship with CABE at an early stage and then we enter into the planning consultation in the usual way as part of a parallel process. Q93 Sir Paul Beresford: A large proportion of these planning applications are basis of opinion. Is there not a risk that CABE, which has an advisory capacity, is actually getting to the point where the local authorities see it as spreading the Gospel and they follow them for fear of having a contrary opinion? Ms Peace: I think actually that is what I was alluding to earlier on, and, if I may, I will expand slightly on that point. I agree that there is a danger there. You could almost say CABE has become too successful, in that its opinions are so valued that it is seen then as a further hurdle in the formal planning application process. Which is why we believe that if CABE could spread itself a little more widely at the pre-application phase this would emphasise the consultation, the informal nature of the discussion, in order to give these guys an idea as to whether they are on the right track, rather than it being seen as a formal hurdle at the planning application stage. Q94 Sir Paul Beresford: You have emphasised that, it is on the right track according to CABE? Ms Peace: It is the right track according to a group of people who have expertise in design. It is only one factor which then is taken into account. Developers may not choose to accept everything that CABE says. They have to look at a broader range of aspects, they have to look at commercial viability, at whether it is actually buildable, whether they think they can get tenants for it after the event. CABE has an important input into all of that, and I think developers like Land Securities would acknowledge that but accept there is more. Ms Shillam: CABE is treated with huge respect by local authorities and by architects who have to put their schemes forward to it, and that is actually credit to the level of discernment of the group of people who do design review. I think we must not forget that CABE's advice is just another piece of advice and that the local authority can take it, but they must also take into account crucially the views of the community, of the people who are adjoining owners, there is a whole series of others, and in some cases local authorities do not take CABE's advice. As designers, we may feel that it would be good if one ignored a piece of advice from a respected body, but one should say why one is ignoring that advice, but it is still completely open to the planning authority to make the decision, and so it should be. Q95 Andrew Bennett: Liz, you give a very firm thumbs down to research. Are you really confident that actually there is the research? I am looking for one of these big schemes, where it has been built and someone has actually measured what the developers said when they went for the planning application with what actually turned out on the ground. It is very difficult to find anyone who has analysed whether the traffic flows have turned out as the experts had predicted, whether the jobs created have been the number that had been claimed and whether even public perception of the scheme is the same. Is there really all that much research available? Ms Peace: Perhaps I could clarify slightly what I said earlier. You have interpreted it in a slightly extreme way. I am not giving thumbs down to all research. I think it is very important, when CABE is doing research, that they have a very clear idea of what the end objective is and what they are actually going to do with it. I have been involved with CABE on a number of research projects where I have felt they were perhaps a little bit too sort of up in the air and airy-fairy and I would have liked to see greater purpose. If, as a result of a fairly broad research project, you get a set of very sort of broad instructions and guidelines, we have got an awful lot of those. If you look on the CABE website, I think there are 180 publications, which is quite a lot for the development community to wade through in order to be sure that they are going to get it right. So when I said I would like to see consolidation of what has been done already, I have no problem with a well-directed piece of research that is actually going to look at, say, a post-event analysis. Q96 Chairman: This is to the architects. You mentioned that you are concerned that CABE are beginning to spread themselves a bit too thinly and you were getting on to these informal assessments to do with the fact that they could not do a more detailed formal review of every scheme. Do you express some concerns about that, that perhaps without the amount of time and input in everyone was going to be as thorough, but they may be treated potentially as thorough with the same degree of weight as a formal assessment? Mr Hastilow: Yes. I would say that is a modest level of concern, because we recognise, for the reasons which colleagues have already put forward, the value that there is in getting this job done and getting it done right. Sometimes it has been beyond the resources of CABE to do as much as they would have liked and as the client, the local authority or private client, would have liked. We think there are some ways of developing the design review service with sufficient funding, and we are not talking of lots more money, with a little bit more cash, that can overcome those problems on those occasions. I think that is a development path rather than a major concern. Ms Shillam: Also to strengthen local authorities' own internal design abilities, which in a lot of planning authorities is very low at the moment, so that CABE does not always have to be called in for every single design issue because the local authority does not have its own capacities of discernment. Q97 Christine Russell: Can I move on, and I think you have answered this question partially but I do not think we have heard from the property developers. How much weight do you think the local authority should give to the views of CABE? You sort of said that it would be helpful if they did but you understand that they do not always. What is the perspective of the property developers? Mr Hussey: That is an almost unfair question, I suspect, from a developer's point of view. I think you need to look at the issues that are being debated on each individual application, and that is not an attempt to evade the general question but they are so radically different on virtually every single major application that CABE would consider. I think also you need to look at the make‑up of the design review panel itself and there is a real cross-section of expertise across the review panel. I have heard criticisms, and on one or two occasions would suspect that they are reasonably levied, that there are not necessarily enough architects on the design review panel. If you are talking about a design shortfall in a local authority, maybe a slightly higher percentage of architects may be the answer you are looking for, in which case, maybe we should take a greater consensus view on where the panel are coming from. It has been set up as an advisory panel and I think they take their responsibilities very seriously. Therefore, I would imagine that any local authority would consider whatever they have as a very fundamental part of the process, but design is one part of it and there are other elements of policy which come into consideration when reviewing a planning application. We would not be naïve enough to think that if we had got a tick in a box with CABE then we get a planning consent, and I do not think the planners are treating it that way either. Q98 Christine Russell: It is interesting, what you have just told us about the composition of the panels, because if you had been in the room earlier you would have heard the representatives of various amenity groups saying they would like to see most of the panel members sacked, or replaced, or whatever. Mr Hussey: Occasionally, I think that too. Q99 Christine Russell: To be replaced by people who have some perhaps greater depth of experience of historic buildings, historic environments, conservation. Is that a valid criticism, in your view? Mr Hussey: I think it does depend enormously on the application or the design or plan being considered. I think there is a very small element of that. I think, if you have got a team, there may be a quantity surveyor on the panel reviewing a historic building context or a World Heritage Site, or whatever, then you could argue that might not be appropriate. The people who are put forward by CABE to represent their interests are extremely experienced and very knowledgeable people in their field and they have covered virtually every aspect of development through their own eyes. I would say it is probably an extreme view that is being held but maybe that is part of the process you need to go through. I think that most people take that responsibility very seriously and, whatever discipline they come from, they would proffer a view only if they felt it was within their professional ability to do so. I suspect the view from CABE is fairly well directed to the people who are capable of asking the question. I do not think anybody would answer a question on behalf of a historic buildings expert if they were not involved in some way in their career anyway. I feel quite confident that the advice they give is appropriate for the experience that they have got. Ms Peace: Just to reinforce the point Mike made earlier, I do think that it is absolutely essential that this design advice is taken in the broader context of what the planning authority should be looking at when it considers a planning application. As Mike said, design is not the only facet, there are many other aspects. Design is not the only facet also for the developer, who has to look at a broader range of issues. I think it is being sure that it gets the proper holistic view at the planning authority consideration stage which is vitally important. Mr Hastilow: We think that there is a pretty good balance on that team so far, and of course it is backed up by an expert staff. On the historic buildings side, of course, the Chairman of the Review Committee is also a Commissioner of English Heritage, and we feel that there is a very good pool of experts, not just architects but experts for the Committee to draw upon. If, in the light of this inquiry and the challenges, and so on, the CABE Commissioners felt they needed more on the historic side, I am sure there are plenty of good people they can draw upon to bring in there. Q100 Christine Russell: Obviously, you would refute absolutely the accusation that CABE is stuffed full of iconic architects in their design? Mr Hastilow: Yes, Mrs Russell, and certainly anybody who looked at the list to see who is fielded on the variety of occasions I think would see that too, but there is always room for more good people. Q101 Andrew Bennett: You could argue that CABE was necessary because architects had served the country pretty badly for the last 20 years. Is it not rather odd then to give CABE extra power, in other words, giving power back to those very architects who have made a mess of things over the years? Ms Shillam: As the only practising architect on a panel of four, I think I should refute that. In the end, there are good and bad in all professions and I believe firmly that society gets the architecture it deserves because of who it decides to appoint to do specific projects. CABE has done an awful lot of work in making sure that clients, of whatever hue, whether public or private, really think very carefully about who they appoint for a project and appoint someone who is going to do a good design. The fact that in the design review one is reviewed by one's peers is a reason why as architects we respect that hugely, because we know we are getting a technical, considered review of our architecture. Q102 Chairman: Is that true? If the architect who is doing the review comes from a different school and different thought from the architect who is actually doing the scheme, what surely is distinctive is that probably they are not going to be very sympathetic and accept the view of the other architect, are they? Ms Shillam: I think that is why you have to make sure that the design review panel are respected people in their field, whatever field that should be. Architects are very used to commenting on other people's designs, it is something we do regularly. A lot of local authorities have local architect's panels who give informal advice. I do not see it as a problem personally. I am always very pleased if there is an architect on the panel which is going to review our work. Mr Hastilow: As a layman, Mr Chairman, I have been quite surprised to find the volume of support from not only architects but also developers, people who have had things done to them and said to them they might not have liked but actually have felt afterwards is pretty fair, so I think there has been a reasonable balance struck. Q103 Andrew Bennett: So what happened in the 1960s is not typical. There was a series of housing estates which won architectural design awards and the architects thought they were fantastic. The only trouble is that the people who had to live there did not like them? Mr Hastilow: Coming from Portsmouth, Mr Bennett, I have had some experience of this. Certainly I would recognise that the profession I support now is one which has got things wrong in the past, of course, has not had enough regard in some cases for what people needed and wanted in their environment, and certainly we have made mistakes. I think CABE is one of the ways of helping us not to make mistakes like that in the future by giving a better appraisal and serving the clients well. Q104 Christine Russell: Can I ask you a slightly controversial question. Under the domain of my colleague, sitting on the other side of the room, most architectural services in local authorities were outsourced, privatised, whatever you want to call it. Is it now the chickens coming home to roost, that within local authorities you no longer have the expertise present and that is why CABE is needed? Do you see that we will always need CABE, or should we be putting more resources into rebuilding that architectural capacity within local authorities? Mr Hastilow: Yes, I think that we do need a higher level of design experience and skill and advice within local authorities. Arguably, the pendulum swung too far. That is not to say that local authorities do not engage good architects in their regions to advise them, and good planners and engineers and others, of course they do. The answer to the second part, in my view, is that even if you beef up, as we recommend you beef up, the design skills within local authorities you can still end up very close to a project, especially if it is a huge one and you have been working with it for years. To have that cool, external appraisal, I think, will still be extremely valuable to a lot of local authorities and other clients. Q105 Christine Russell: Would the BPF like to pass any comment on the capacity of local authorities? Ms Peace: I think, generally speaking, and I would not want to be drawn on individual cases, we do feel that there is a lack of design experience within local authorities. I think, however, even if you did beef it up, having some sort of super body that can take a view on the larger or more significant applications is a good thing, for exactly those reasons. I wonder if I could throw in one other point, which I think harks back partly to Mr Bennett's question. Design is not all about the architects. Architects are employed by developers. A good developer will engage in an iterative process with the architect and, I do not know whether you have ever done it, Mike, certainly in some cases, throw things back at the architect and say he does not like it and there will be a discussion and, as I say, an iteration. It takes more than just an architect to come up with good design. Mr Hussey: In the context of what CABE is being asked to look at, by putting a body of experts in the design review panel and then consulting with them makes a lot of sense, because they are the top people in their particular professions and therefore the local authority is going to benefit from advice from top professionals. In a way, the question is, if it is geared away from CABE slightly and into the local authorities and if there is a slight lack of design expertise then perhaps the areas of most concern are the ones where CABE do not touch them, between those and the more mundane day-to-day applications. CABE touch a very small percentage of overall applications and probably there are a fair number of reasonably large, reasonably important applications which go through the design process with local authorities which may be underresourced, and I think that is an area of concern. I do not know how that touches the point particularly, which is a review of CABE in its current form, which I believe does add value to the design consideration in a local authority. Q106 Christine Russell: Is that particularly a problem in the regions rather than in London and the South East? Mr Hussey: I think resource is an issue for a large number of planning authorities, whether it is within London or externally. Ms Shillam: It is not just outside. Perhaps some of the bigger unitary authorities outside London are best able to deal with these issues, while some of the London boroughs, in the experience of our members, find it very difficult to give the time and attention to an application which it requires, having just a huge amount of applications. Mr Hussey: Yes, and I think the London boroughs have a larger percentage of these large applications as well. I think it is not just resource, it is turnover, the constant turnover of some of the planning officials makes it very difficult to process a planning application over, say, a two- to three-year period, when you might have half a dozen people dealing with the case. Q107 Chairman: I wonder whether you concur with something that a developer said to me the other day, that their worst experience of CABE was on a scheme where CABE had expressed no interest and came in right at the last minute and started making comments almost when the development had been fixed and the application was about to be considered, whereas the general advice is that CABE should be in early to influence the discussions, to formulate part of the process? Ms Peace: Yes, absolutely. I think we would say the earlier the better. Mr Hussey: I think the informal advice is much more appreciated, before you put in the planning application, and then one person making the decision is the ideal for us. Ms Shillam: Also it gives the opportunity for local stakeholders and the local community to respond to that advice and give a view of support or not. Chairman: Thank you all for your evidence. Memorandum submitted by Mira Bar-Hillel Examination of Witness
Witness: Ms Mira Bar-Hillel, Property and Planning Correspondent, London Evening Standard, examined. Q108 Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. For the sake of our records, could you identify yourself, please? Ms Bar-Hillel: I am Mira Bar-Hillel, Property and Planning Correspondent of the London Evening Standard. Q109 Chairman: Is there anything you would like to say by way of introduction, or would you like to go straight to questions? Ms Bar-Hillel: I can speak only for London, that is my limitation. If what I say applies beyond London, so be it, but I would claim no expertise beyond the M25. Chairman: We look forward to hearing what happens within the M25 anyway. Q110 Chris Mole: The design of many new buildings has improved over the last few years. I hope that is true in London as well. Would you say that CABE's efforts have added to these improvements? Ms Bar-Hillel: Possibly. I have not seen conclusive evidence either way. Q111 Chris Mole: The initial designs that come out for many schemes sometimes are of quite poor quality and local authorities do not always have the resources in order to respond to that. Would you say it was a good idea to have a well-informed group to scrutinise those initial designs and recommend improvements? Ms Bar-Hillel: Yes, that would be a very good idea. Q112 Chris Mole: Would you see that was what CABE are seeking to do? Ms Bar-Hillel: I think it is doing it so imperfectly that it is arguable that the downside actually is outweighing the benefits. Q113 Chris Mole: Where do you think those imperfections lie? Ms Bar-Hillel: Unaccountability, lack of transparency, cliquism, groupism, stylism, back to unaccountability and lack of transparency. Nobody actually knows for sure who is reviewing their designs, what was said in the discussion, whether their review was a full review or a pin‑up. Pin‑up review? I only saw this in the documents. I could not believe my eyes. And so on. There is a gross lack of accountability and transparency in the work of design review and, if we remember, that design review is enormously important. One word which has not been mentioned here today so far is 'money'. We are talking about schemes that are worth billions of pounds. To my mind, it is inconceivable that a body which influences a decision on such valuable properties can be allowed, in this day and age, to carry out its deliberation and decision-making with such a degree of transparency and lack of accountability. Nothing could be more in contrast with what we are doing here right now. Q114 Sir Paul Beresford: It sounds like English Heritage all over again. Is that what you are saying? Ms Bar-Hillel: Actually, English Heritage now publishes the London advisory papers on its website. I have to say, I had to campaign for that for about ten years, but they do it now. Q115 Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps we had a small say too. Ms Bar-Hillel: Thank you very much. They did resist it, for a while. While they were still a quasi-public organisation, a residuary body from the GLC, everything was done in public. It withdrew into secrecy gradually and lamentably and now is being pulled, kicking and screaming, back into the public arena. If it is sauce for English Heritage, let it be sauce for CABE. CABE is a new organisation, it has begun in a culture of secrecy which has led to the audit and all the horrors that it exposed. Surely you cannot possibly consider letting it carry on like this. Q116 Mr O'Brien: What you are saying is that CABE should have no input into the design of prominent buildings, is that right? Ms Bar-Hillel: No, I am not saying that. I know my submission said that design review is iniquitous and should be brought to an end, but that was, if you like, by way of being just mildly provocative. What I am saying is, CABE should realise that being allowed to have the input that it has into major planning applications and decisions is not a God-given right, it has to be earned and they have to demonstrate that they are doing it properly in order to be allowed to retain that privilege. Q117 Mr O'Brien: Is it not a fact that London boroughs and London authorities give weight to CABE's advice rather than CABE offering the advice? Ms Bar-Hillel: I am not sure which way it goes, and of course there are 32 boroughs in London and different things apply. At some point or another they all do give weight to CABE recommendations and if they do not the Inspector will at the appeal stage, which is something that everybody bears in mind these days. One way or another, CABE has enormous influence on planning decisions, involving, in many cases, hundreds of millions of pounds. Q118 Mr O'Brien: That is only because of the fact that local authorities have asked them to do that, is it not? Is not that your experience? Their weight in influencing design is because local authorities have asked them to do it? Ms Bar-Hillel: This is possibly because of this sort of design police thing, that organisations like CABE, which normally advertise themselves as "the Government's design watchdog", have this aura about them and local authorities feel intellectually intimidated very often and think, "Well, we're not up to this, let's bring in the experts." Q119 Mr O'Brien: Where do you suggest that CABE's advice should end? At the present time you suggest that CABE should advise developers and designers only at the pre-planning stage. Ms Bar-Hillel: No. What I am suggesting is the introduction of transparency into the design review process, and I can elaborate on that if you wish. Q120 Mr O'Brien: A little? Ms Bar-Hillel: I would suggest that at every design review panel meeting minutes are taken and the name of every single member of the panel present is recorded, the debate is recorded, the forum is recorded, how much information has the panel received about this scheme, how many drawings have they seen? For example, one of the things which amaze me about CABE is that they never go to the site. Again there is evidence in this report from all the amenity societies, they do not go to the site. It is like computer-dating. "Send us some snapshots, with a brief résumé of why you're so wonderful, and we'll match you up with a planning application and you'll live happily ever after." It is superficial, it is irresponsible. If rules are laid down and if someone is going to open that piece of paper and find out how they have reached that decision, it is very possible that local authorities will take a different view of what is before them. Q121 Mr O'Brien: Could local authorities take over? If CABE finished after the design stage, would local authorities have the skills to assess the design quality and the planning applications? Ms Bar-Hillel: They always have in the past. Q122 Mr O'Brien: They will not have to? Ms Bar-Hillel: No, there was life before CABE, I am suggesting. CABE is actually only five years old. I know sometimes we think it is suffering from some sort of senile dementia, but it is only five years old. Q123 Mr O'Brien: You did hear my colleague suggest that the reason why CABE came in is because of the experience that we had in the sixties and seventies, in my area, where large estates were built and they were pulled down after such a short time because no‑one would live in them. That is one of the reasons why CABE came in. So there was life before CABE but it was not a very good one? Ms Bar-Hillel: In the eighties and the nineties a lot of very good estates were built without any input from CABE. Q124 Mr O'Brien: CABE came in to improve the design. Are you saying that it has not been successful? Ms Bar-Hillel: As I said before, I am not sure. I have yet to be convinced either way. You were asking about housing estates. Can I relate to you a recent experience I had, it is so recent that I could not put it in my submission because it happened afterwards. As you probably all know, CABE produced a very scathing report on house-builders and said what rubbish a lot of their designs were. I got a call saying "Would you like a copy for publication?" and I said, "Yes, of course, and by the way did you actually talk to anyone who had bought any of those houses, the good, the bad or the ugly?" and there was a gasp at the other end of the 'phone. My initial thought was, "Oh, he's going to say, 'Whoops, we should have done that shouldn't we?'" but he did not. He was gasping because he was taken aback at the question. They had no intention of asking people who actually bought the houses whether they liked them and, if so, why, or if they did not why not. There was some kind of contempt for members of the public there. Q125 Mr O'Brien: What you are saying then is that CABE should be more involved, by site visits, by looking at the environment around the site, and report and give opinions on the design after seeing the site, so CABE should be more involved with design quality? Ms Bar-Hillel: Talk to real people, get down from your ivory tower. Remember that buildings are there for people, not the other way round. Q126 Mr O'Brien: You are not saying that CABE should not be involved with design or the recommendations? Ms Bar-Hillel: As long as a procedure is totally open and transparent then I do not see any reason why not. Christine Russell: Can I take you up on the points you were just making about the capacity of local authorities, because these halcyon days you refer to in the eighties and the nineties, of course, those were the days when local authorities actually did have in‑house architects and most local authorities do not have any in‑house architects any more. If they do not have that capacity and if CABE did not exist, from where should local authorities get this expert advice on design, purely on design? Q127 Sir Paul Beresford: Could they buy it in? Ms Bar-Hillel: They could choose to buy it in and they could choose to use their own commonsense. Q128 Christine Russell: From whom would they buy it in? Ms Bar-Hillel: From private architectural consultants. Q129 Christine Russell: From rivals to the applicant? Ms Bar-Hillel: In fact, if you are talking about a really big scheme in central London, you are much more likely to find rivals on the CABE panel than elsewhere, much more likely. Q130 Christine Russell: Does that not help the accountability argument, if they are rivals? Ms Bar-Hillel: Again, because of the lack of transparency, they get away with it. If they were named, the applicants would look at the list of panellists and say, "Hang on a second, we may not be rivals on this side but we're rivals there," or "We had a very nasty exchange, with personal abuse involved, over some competition in China," or whatever. Architects take things terribly personally. Q131 Christine Russell: Is the bottom line of your obviously deep-seated aversion to CABE based on the fact that you think that ordinary people, as you called them earlier, do not actually like good designs, good modern architecture? Ms Bar-Hillel: I do not know what you mean by good design and good modern architecture. Ordinary people I think have the commonsense, and, ordinary people, for goodness sake, it is you and me we are talking about here. Are we not allowed to have an opinion as to what we think is good architecture? Q132 Christine Russell: Do you not think that most ordinary people, given a choice, would like to live in, I do not know, mock Tudor, or whatever, a pastiche? Ms Bar-Hillel: Obviously CABE think so, which is why, when I suggested they would like to speak to ordinary people, they cringed in horror. Their attitude, I have to say, probably was more along the lines of "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do. We cannot possibly ask members of the public, in case, God forbid, they should tell us what they really think. We have to educate them to like glass and steel boxes." Q133 Chairman: Is it CABE in particular you do not like, or is it architects in general? Ms Bar-Hillel: Some of my best friends are architects. Q134 Christine Russell: Would it help, would you come round perhaps to liking and loving CABE if the kind of composition of the design review panel were different? Ms Bar-Hillel: Yes. Let us be serious about this. Q135 Christine Russell: Who would you put on it? You want transparency and openness so give us a list of who you would put on it? Ms Bar-Hillel: At the moment there is too much of the sort of Trinny and Susannah approach, "We will dress you and it will change your life," or not. That is the height of arrogance. Another example of the height of arrogance is the letter from a former CABE person, saying "We do not, as a matter of course, set out reasoning which leads us to support projects." Meaning "This is good and we're going to like it and you're going to like it and don't ask us to tell you why." How arrogant is that? Who would I want to see on CABE? That is asking me to be arrogant, so, no, I am not going to tell CABE who to have. I would suggest that CABE would be better off if it removed from its design review panel anybody with a commercial interest in design and development. If you say, "That empties the ranks," I do not think so. Q136 Christine Russell: Would not that exclude architects too? Ms Bar-Hillel: No, it would exclude only commercially-active architects. There are a lot of architects who are not commercially active, a lot of them are Fellows of the RIBA. Q137 Andrew Bennett: You would have all the failures, would you not? Ms Bar-Hillel: No. Those people will not have the time to sit on CABE design review panels. Failed architects do not tend to, if you like, maybe you are suspecting that they will be teaching so you will not have academic architects. I am not sure that is straightforward. I will give you a name. Ian Henderson has just retired as Chief Executive of Land Securities. I have known him for 25 years. I could not mention anyone whom I hold in higher regard as to his integrity, most importantly, his integrity. He is a completely straight and honest man, who from now on will have no commercial interests, unless there is something I do not know and he has got 40 other chairmanships. That is the sort of person I suggest you should be looking for. Q138 Chairman: You have got a generational thing here, have you not? If you are immediately going to go to people who are retired then people with new ideas coming up are almost going to be excluded from the process because they are going to be working? Ms Bar-Hillel: Have a few students, architectural students. Q139 Chairman: Is this really the advice we want, from some students and some retired people and you leave out everyone in the middle? Ms Bar-Hillel: No. It is a matter of balance, if you have enough of a mixture of people. Q140 Chairman: Is it not possible to get people involved who are commercially active, in such a way that you put any interests they have got up front and available for public knowledge and cut out the conflicts that way? Ms Bar-Hillel: Yes, of course. It is a combination of the openness and the composition of a panel which will dictate who sits on every plan that comes before CABE. If those parameters are adhered to, and, I have to insist, they have to be adhered to because CABE has got all kinds of guidelines and proposals, and so on, unfortunately nobody polices whether they actually implement them. The CABE-English Heritage joint paper on tall buildings is only a year old and already has been more noted in the breach than in the implementation. Neither organisation actually abides by its own rules on tall buildings, notably CABE in the case of Croydon, when it approved an outline application, having said itself that outline applications with tall buildings should not be entertained. There are serious problems here. The biggest issue with CABE is, its intentions are faultless but then we all know about good intentions. Q141 Andrew Bennett: This question about vested interests, is not part of the problem your future interests? I was very worried when you suggested students, because if students give the thumbs up to a particular scheme is not that a very good job application for them? Ms Bar-Hillel: Knowing developers as I do, I think probably not. Q142 Andrew Bennett: You are very keen to have openness in an organisation, but actually is it not a gift to the media at the present moment that you can dig round and chase up the stories and get stuck into the papers, whereas if it were open it would be pretty boring and would not actually appear in the papers at all? Ms Bar-Hillel: You are assuming that media interest is a bad thing. I have to say, I think otherwise. I think media interest, like daylight, is a very hygienic part of the public process. Q143 Andrew Bennett: Is there not more interest because it is secret and if it were all open there would not be as much interest? Ms Bar-Hillel: It would be only relevant interest. If I wanted to know who was on the design review panel which assessed a particular scheme that was interesting to me, either for personal reasons or because a member of the public drew my attention to it, I would not be able to find out. I do not think that is right. I do not think that is democratic. Q144 Andrew Bennett: Are you sure you would not be able to find out, as a good journalist? Ms Bar-Hillel: I assure you, no, I would not be able to find out, because, for some mysterious reason, CABE are not going out of their way to be helpful to me at the moment. It should not be up to them, it should be open to the public. The media actually is not all that interested, I have to tell you, really they are not, including my own. I find it very, very difficult to get stories on this kind of subject into my own paper, and it is not for want of trying. Chairman: We may have helped a bit with that this afternoon anyway. Thank you very much for coming. Memorandum submitted by Rory Coonan, Hon. FRIBA Examination of Witness
Witness: Mr Rory Coonan, Hon. FRIBA, Independent Design Adviser, examined. Q145 Chairman: Thank you very much for coming this afternoon. I am sorry we have kept you waiting a little bit longer than expected. Could you identify yourself, for the sake of our records, please? Mr Coonan: I am Rory Coonan. I am an independent design adviser. Q146 Chairman: Thank you. Is there anything you would like to say by way of introduction, or can we go straight into questions? Mr Coonan: No, thank you, Sir. Q147 Christine Russell: Mr Coonan, good afternoon. You said in your submission that you think CABE should do fewer things. What do you think it should stop doing and what should it prioritise? Mr Coonan: I think that CABE has been an enormous success so far, and the things that it has done well it has done exceptionally well, but, as we have heard already, it is five years old and perhaps the limits of success are being discovered, it is perhaps taking on too much. There were last year 660,000 planning applications, of which CABE reviewed 480. That is less than one-eighth of one per cent of that, it is a tiny number. They cannot possibly review any more than a fraction of these planning applications. I should say, in answer to your question, that they need to be more selective, given the resources they have, in relation to the projects that they view, the better to give more force and power, if you like, to their opinions. Also I think they should cease having these, what I call, tied panels of advisers, persons who are selected by them who join the ranks of the enablers. On the Groucho Marx principle, that I would not wish to join a club that would have me as a member, I have declined to join the enabling panel but I am sure it does very good work. My real objection to their having these panels of advisers is that it creates an impression, true or not I do not know, that a certain caste or cadre of persons is giving advice. I have said elsewhere that I think it would be much to the improvement of the quality of architecture if a genuine market in design advice were to be created, so that independent bodies, local authorities, government departments, agencies of all kinds, could take advice from whomsoever they pleased. Rather than, as in the case of the CABE enabling panels, they are, as it were, allotted a person whose rates of pay, I notice, are fixed. Q148 Christine Russell: Would not that give Government and local authorities just another job to do, a kind of advertising, I do not know, competitions, "Come and help us design this building," or whatever? Mr Coonan: I think it was you, Mrs Russell, who only a few minutes ago alluded to the fact that local authorities once used to possess this skill, so I should say, in answer to your point, that, yes, they should acquire it again. They can choose to do that, or they can choose to source advice locally, that is to say, regionally rather than necessarily metropolitanally, if I can put it that way. Q149 Christine Russell: Going back to the first half of the question which you answered, do you think that, the 480 applications, they should be more selective and in fact review fewer than that, rather than to go back with a begging-bowl to the Government and say "Give us more money because we only do 480 and we'd like to do more"? Mr Coonan: They should not review fewer applications, they should perhaps do more, but they could do more by being selective about the things that they choose to do, the better to make an impact. There is an enormous explosion of public investment, as evidence elsewhere to your Committee makes plain, some £35 billion worth of projects, including Private Finance Initiative projects. If CABE were doing fewer things, perhaps less advertising of itself, it could concentrate more on this enormous explosion of public sector investment which happily is taking place, and where it could make a real impact. It could begin to punch above its weight rather than simply trying to affect the quality of individual projects, which is a hopeless cause, given the £12 million it has and the 82 persons it employs for the purpose. Q150 Christine Russell: I can understand what you are saying, that they should do less in the way of research, but, as far as the actual planning proposals that they are reviewing at the moment are concerned, which ones should they stop their involvement with? Mr Coonan: It is not a matter for me. All I know is that their remit, both from the Department of Culture and the department that you have the privilege of shadowing, makes it plain that they have to look at projects of scale, projects which stand as an exemplar for other sorts of projects, projects affecting certain so-called heritage sites. The rules are already set out. They may need to be more selective about the ones that they choose to review. Q151 Andrew Bennett: Of all the witnesses, you are about the only one who wants CABE to have more powers. What extra powers should it have? Mr Coonan: I speak as a person who spent ten years at the Arts Council of Great Britain, a body which took 40 years to evolve its systems of review, its equitable systems, its probity, all that has taken many decades to review, so I am not surprised that five years is a very short time to establish itself. From my Arts Council experience, I look at the long-term prospects for CABE and I see this. I see the possibility that the exigencies of government policy, the vagaries of the individual policy, will change, as indeed they do, and that a new set of tasks may be given to CABE and that they may not be able to carry them out, or they will simply be, as it were, moved from one set of concrete policy objectives to the next. The culprits here, of course, are ODPM rather than the DCMS, who seem to have rather few strictures when it comes to applying to CABE. In relation to ODPM, there are a specific number of tasks they are enjoined to do. I do not think that is what a long-term body should be doing, it should be making its own policy. I think CABE should be robust and authoritative in carrying out the functions which DCMS and ODPM jointly have given them and say, "Well, actually, thank you very much but we will ordain our own day-to-day policies on what we should do precisely." The list from ODPM is astonishing. Basically, it tells what CABE should have for breakfast, dinner and lunch, and it is not a diet which I think is sustainable. I think, for a long-term body to evolve, it has to make up its own mind, it has to assert itself and it has to do more to discharge the wider cultural role that DCMS has given it, but which so far I think it has not had the opportunity to do because it is so trammelled by this multiplicity of tasks, aiding and abetting the Government's policies, as sensible of course as they are, for developing sustainable communities. Q152 Andrew Bennett: There was a slight smile there. We cannot get a slight smile on the record. Can I just press you. You want to give them more powers, to have much greater independence and to have much more freedom to do what they think is right. How do you convince people that they are not a self-serving élite? Mr Coonan: I have nothing against élites, as Raymond Williams once said, I want them for everybody, and an élite of brain surgeons is not regarded as a bad thing, neuroscience being a field and a discipline where few people are qualified. I do not think we should apologise for the fact that CABE is an élite, if you mean by that a body of persons with expert knowledge who are proud of the knowledge they have and are willing to deploy it in the public interest, and I see no reason why CABE should not carry on that way. It is not self-serving, it is very much a body, as I see it from the outside, which is in the service of the public, and that is a jolly good thing. Q153 Andrew Bennett: Do you see there is a conflict between public interest and profit? Mr Coonan: Whose profit did you have in mind? Q154 Andrew Bennett: To a certain extent, there must be profit for those people who are offering architectural advice, must there not? Mr Coonan: Do you mean those persons who are working for CABE, delivering advice? Q155 Andrew Bennett: Anybody who is involved with particular styles and approaches to architecture has an interest, do they not, in particular schemes, particular ideas being developed? Mr Coonan: Do you mean a financial interest, a pecuniary interest? Q156 Andrew Bennett: Yes. Mr Coonan: I am not sure that is true, Chairman. I think there are many persons who are disinterested in the projects on which they advise. I would count myself amongst them, alas. It is perhaps to my detriment that I am not. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. There is an argument for having a greater number of persons who dispense this advice in a disinterested way. I must say, I agree with many previous witnesses this afternoon who have said that they wish there would be a greater variety of persons amongst the CABE Commissioners and amongst the design review panels, persons who are not those persons who have a professional interest in the outcome. That would do much to dispel any view that CABE was, as you put it, self-serving. Q157 Chairman: Perhaps, if the altruism that you are identifying yourself with were prevalent throughout society in general, we would all be relaxed about it, but there is a concern around, is there not, that there is so much money hinging on some of these developments that not everyone might be giving advice from that perspective? Is not that a concern, that if you start to give more and more powers to people, some of whom may have a different take on it, that we could be entering into very difficult waters? Mr Coonan: If CABE were a Commission for poetry or sculpture, its deliberations no doubt would be interesting but they would not necessarily be compelling. The reason why CABE, as a Commission for Architecture, is compelling is because enormous sums of money turn on the outcome. The art of architecture is no less important than the arts of poetry or sculpture, but that is the difference, because, architecture being a practical art, a greater number of persons have a stake in the outcome and that complicates the thing. Giving powers to CABE to bolster its independence and the scrutiny that it is able to give to projects would be, I think, a very good thing. I would describe them as the power of discovery, a legal term, the power to look at papers and look at drawings, and the power to delay, because if, as I said earlier, this enormous raft of public investment over the next ten or 20 years comes to fruition there may well be many applicants, or perhaps we should call them supplicants, to CABE who may be uninterested in taking advice. Whereas as in the case, say, of a large London teaching hospital they prove recalcitrant or perhaps uninterested and the design is poor, I suspect that in due course, as these projects multiply, CABE will benefit from having the teeth to pass observations, to give advice, but from a position of strength. In other words, the success of the first five years is no guarantee of its success in the next five or 15 years. Q158 Sir Paul Beresford: Just because CABE does not agree with, you used, the London hospital design, it does not mean it is poor and it does not mean it is wrong, it means it is different, because part of an art is an opinion? Mr Coonan: Indeed, but the reason we have CABE is because we have persons on CABE who have an informed opinion. That is the whole point. Persons whose opinions are informed are more likely to proffer advice that is, by definition, informed, and a number of people may choose to ignore them where they may take that advice. I think it is an argument in favour of having a strong CABE with well-informed people. Q159 Sir Paul Beresford: So architects and designers that are not on CABE are ill‑informed? Mr Coonan: I do not see how logically that applies. Q160 Sir Paul Beresford: I am just following your thinking over the London hospital example that you gave? Mr Coonan: If I may say, I think it is at a tangent to my thinking. The fact that one is not a member of CABE does not mean that if one is not a member somehow one is ill‑formed. Not everybody can be a member. Q161 Chris Mole: Coming back to the powers, you have suggested that CABE should have a power to delay, but why are you suggesting that might be necessary, given that there is a function for the Secretary of State there, which presumably, if CABE were upset or concerned enough, would be flagged up and could be operated at that level? Mr Coonan: If, as I understand it, the Government's intention is to place CABE on a statutory footing, it seems to me, if one is doing that, it makes sense to give them some statutory powers, otherwise what is the point of doing it? If CABE is to become a statutory body, the two powers I have described and the one of delay I shall describe seem to me rather important weapons in its armoury, to be used in extremis, and delay will concentrate the minds of our property developer friends enormously, because delay means costs. Therefore, if CABE wished to bring people to the table who were unwilling to listen to good advice, perhaps not necessarily to take or even to listen to it, then I think just that reserve power would serve to bring them to their attention. Q162 Chris Mole: What about discovery? Surely the local authority has the power of discovery? Mr Coonan: They may well do. I do not know whether that is true. I suspect not. In relation to CABE, the power of discovering drawings, plans, in other words, to be shown that which is pertinent and material to the project, would be a useful power to have in reserve. At the moment these things are very ill‑defined. There is no, as it were, unanimity or uniformity about the things, the material, that can be submitted. I suspect it varies very widely from project to project. Q163 Chairman: In terms of openness, would you also think the public ought to have the power of discovery about what goes on in CABE? Mr Coonan: To the extent that you review their activities, to the extent that they publish a report, to the extent that they are audited perhaps ad nauseam, as many public bodies are, by their sponsor departments, I think probably that is sufficient. I do not believe personally in what I call the 'fake demotic' of public hearings on every conceivable topic. I think the public is well served by CABE, and I have made suggestions about how it could be served better, but I do not think holding these things in public will really add to the sum of the knowledge. Q164 Sir Paul Beresford: Even if they are given the semi-dictatorial power that you would like them to have, in extremis? Mr Coonan: The powers I have described, Sir Paul, are only powers of being given information and making an influence on people's proposals. They are not powers of enforcement, because I have not suggested that CABE should be anything other than the advisory body that it is. Q165 Chairman: Surely, if they are going to influence, as they might well do as a result of this, some very major decisions, has not the public got a right to know how they reach the decisions which then exercise the influence? Mr Coonan: CABE publishes accounts of its proceedings, and no doubt, in the next five years of its existence, it will improve and streamline how it does that, and that is much to be desired. Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence. |