Read on Twitter
Early thoughts on a first read of the draft National Model Design Code, slipped out this morning. It's good, @URBEDmcr and @MHCLG design team have done well with a difficult brief. Next step in the welcome rediscovery of design in Government after the Cameron years... [thread]
The B word: Thankfully, you can count occurrences of the word beauty/beautiful on one hand. The authors know this has been winding practitioners up with its meaninglessness.
Definition: So are we talking about design codes or guides? There’s a definition of what a code is (sets visual and numerical, wherever possible, requirements). Although code and guide invariably used together and blurred, which is a sensible softening on the document’s title.
Big new thing is suggestion that “some elements of the code may apply to the entire local authority area”.
Area wide codes would be entirely new in England – I asked the question at an @UDGUrbanUpdate session on coding and none of the 150 urban designers present could name a LA-wide design code. But the process refers to “design code wide GUIDANCE”, which does fit current practice.
The audience is explicitly limited to local authorities. Most design codes now are for sites and produced by developers. LPAs produce design guides but I think this is the first how-to guide (which is what it is really).
Status: “This guidance is not a statement of national policy”. NPPF rules. It’s being only guidance that has held back full implementation of Manual for Streets.
This is interesting and welcome: “In the absence of local design guidance, local planning authorities will be expected to defer to the National Design Guide, National Model Design Code and Manual for Streets”.
Measuring density: confusingly, a hard to understand ‘Density Index’ is introduced but not followed through in the rest of the doc or Guidance Notes, which use the well-understood (although the difference between net and gross still trips many planners up) dwellings per hectare.
The design guidelines themselves are sound, largely re-stating, but updating, what was in the set of national guidance cancelled by Pickles and the gold standard Urban Design Compendium.
Parking: Some emphasis on Poundbury-style rear parking courts in urban neighbourhoods. Means trade off with gardens and security (burglary risk from rear access is kind of acknowledged in the Guidance Notes) security section. @ProfRArmitage
Mix of uses: Strong guidance but undermined by recent changes to permitted development rights.
Engagement: In the Guidance Notes, probably the weakest section. I am biased (I wrote it) but it would benefit from a reference to https://neighbourhoodplanning.org/toolkits-and-guidance/good-design-neighbourhood-planning/, which is broader and influenced by a wider range of interests. @localitynews
Only one mention of #neighbourhoodplanning in the main doc: “Neighbourhood planning groups may choose to produce their own design codes or guides as part of the NP process”. And 2 mentions in the Guidance Notes, which both see NP groups as just inputting stakeholder.
Maybe because the doc is only addressed at LPAs; NP groups already have access to support to produce their own code, guide or masterplan at https://neighbourhoodplanning.org/ . And NPPF revisions, which have the weight of policy, is clearer on the ongoing role of NPs in influencing design.
Forgot to add the point about resources: who is going to produce the guides/codes, how will LPAs be skilled up and how will they be paid for? Presumably one for the Office for Place @createstreets
