Examination of Witness (Questions 108-119)
1 NOVEMBER 2004
MS MIRA
BAR-HILLEL
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 10 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.
| 
