| The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment was set up by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport in 1999 to improve the design quality of new developments. It is now jointly funded by the DCMS and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Its advice to developers, local authorities and Government departments about their development proposals, and its research and training, is widely valued. Its credibility as a public agency is, however, at stake because of a lack of transparency in its operation and potential conflicts of interests among the Commissioners and its Design Review Panel. The value of its advice is in danger of being undermined.
CABE's strength lies in it involving representatives of development interests - architects, planners, developers and wider built environment specialists - but this is also its potential weakness as some of our witnesses saw it as 'a self-serving clique'. The DCMS set up an audit of conflicts of interest in 2004 which recommended reforms to the way interests were internally recorded and notified and proposed that CABE's chairman should not be a developer. These recommendations are being implemented. The impact of these recent changes needs to be regularly reviewed; however, CABE should be prepared to carry out more radical reforms to alter public perceptions and to make it a more accountable and transparent organisation. Whilst the new chairman is not a developer, development interests are still too heavily represented on CABE which may skew its priorities in favour of new development rather than conservation. CABE should have targets for representatives from a wider range of different interest groups and with different style preferences.
CABE's design review function has raised the most concern because its views on schemes can have a significant influence on a local authority's treatment of a scheme, particularly as some local authorities rely exclusively on CABE's views on the architectural design. CABE reviewed about 480 schemes in 2003/2004, giving each of them what it describes as 'light touch' consideration. There are major concerns that the quality of consideration on some schemes is cursory and does not appear to be based on a clear set of criteria. CABE should consider fewer schemes more thoroughly. The Pin Up sessions when the Design Panel chairman and a member of CABE staff look at drawings of schemes should no longer take place. CABE's design review panel should meet in public, with full meeting notes setting out how the views are reached, including a list of the Panel members present, being forwarded to the local authority.
CABE's remit is to consider the design quality of new development but it appears to neglect the historic context in which schemes are located, so seriously reducing the value of its comments. CABE needs to demonstrate that it has considered the impact on the context when drawing up its views on new-build schemes and consider whether they enhance the historic environment. It should work more closely with English Heritage to ensure that the assessment of new buildings is more rounded.
The Government is promoting major development programmes funded through the Private Finance Initiative and as part of its Sustainable Communities Initiative. The quality of new public buildings funded under PFI is patchy. The Government needs to review how design considerations are incorporated into the funding process to ensure uniformly high quality designs. The Government's Sustainable Communities initiative is seeking to promote a major house-building programme in the South East and is urging the greater use of offsite pre-fabrication to reduce costs and speed up development. There are major concerns that quality could be sacrificed with the Government's urgency to get housing built. CABE should monitor closely the quality of the new housing, particularly those using prefabrication.
|
