Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
1 NOVEMBER 2004
COUNCILLOR ADRIAN
DENNIS AND
MR PETER
BABB
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 Spinningfields,
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 the Spinningfields 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.
| 
