Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
1 NOVEMBER 2004
MR ADAM
WILKINSON, MR
TERENCE BENDIXSON
AND MR
TONY TUGNUTT
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 style of architecture, new or old,
[which he builds on] 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 Harrap, 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 already 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. We have made points about changing
the design review panel, enriching it but continuing to have CABE
focusing on design quality and advising local authorities about
design quality and linking in with civic societies, such as ourselves.
I see in this a new pattern 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 between public and commercial interests.
Mr Bendixson: 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 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 what it thinks is a good example
of design, and give reasons that would leave 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: The context at South
Kensington, for instance consists of nineteenth century terraces
and crescents and squares.
| 
