The Role of Public Consultation in Design Codes

The National Model Design Code (NMDC)

An emerging theme in planning policy is that of ‘beauty’. While ostensibly raising the standards of design, the underlying aim of the beauty agenda is to increase the delivery of more homes. As the then Secretary of State indicated in a webinar on Building Beautiful Places in July last year, very few people actively support planning applications for new homes, but this could be addressed by, ‘putting beauty back at the heart of how we build’. 

It follows therefore that if public support for the design of new communities is achieved at an early stage in the process, planning consent is more likely to be forthcoming. This is what design codes are intended to achieve: as a template by which local residents, via their local planning authority (LPA) can create their own aesthetic wish-list, they allow communities to exercise more control over the built environment. The proposal formed part of the Government’s revolutionary White Paper, Planning for the Future. A broader objective of the White Paper was that consultation be focused largely on strategic planning and reduced at the later stages of the process, thus allowing planning applications to progress more smoothly. Design codes were proposed as a means by which this would be achieved. But while much of the White Paper appears to have been abandoned, design codes are set to remain. 

In July 2021 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was amended to urge all councils to develop a local design code, and the National Model Design Code (NMDC) provides advice on both the process and the content, along with methods to capture and embody the views of the local community.

Emphasising the importance of consultation in the process, the NMDC states: ‘When preparing design codes and guides, communities need to be involved in the process in order to gain measurable community support that is appropriate for the scale and location of new development. Design codes should be prepared in light of information about what is popular locally... This will address the ambition…to bring democracy forward so that communities decide what good design means locally and that this is enshrined in design codes’.

That’s the theory; so how will Design Codes work in practice?

The first consideration is how design codes will fit into our current system. In the context of the Planning White Paper, design codes made sense: they were a tangible means by which consultation could be front-loaded and (invariably contentious) decisions about design addressed at an early stage. But these proposals were not well received: would be-consultees and many MPs objected to consultation on planning applications being applications limited, which in part contributed to the proposed Planning Bill being discarded. 

Currently, therefore, public consultation is required on the formation of a Local Plan, the drafting of a Design Code, and at both the masterplanning and detailed planning stages of a development proposal. Never before has consultation been required to such an extent.
Furthermore, design codes can be applied at county, local authority, neighbourhood or site level. And the NMDC requires consultation at no fewer than three points: on the analysis, the vision and the formation of the code. It also recommends discussions about the most appropriate engagement techniques, briefings and training for community groups, discussions about the code’s content in advance of the consultation on it, and a variety of consultation tactics including walking workshops, photographic surveys, visual preference surveys and sustainability / environmental surveys.

This runs the risk of creating consultation fatigue and an imbalance in local engagement. It is widely understood that objections to planning applications are often brought about by a vocal minority of ‘NIMBYs’. Development plans can be stalled, even terminated, when the entrenched views of a vocal minority drowns out the tacit acceptance of the silent majority. The problem of increased opportunities for consultation, therefore, is that NIMBYs presented with more opportunities to object, increasingly outweigh the voices of those who do not. 

Furthermore, research commissioned by the Government demonstrates that increased engagement is likely to favour a conservative approach to design. In Building More, Building Beautiful: How design and style can unlock the housing crisis, extensive polling demonstrated that support for traditional design was preferred over contemporary architecture: 85% of respondents said new homes should either fit in with their more traditional surroundings or be identical to homes already there.

So will design codes result in a dumbing down in housing design? While consultation can open minds to new ideas, this takes considerable time and skill. A much-repeated comment from the pilot NMDCs was that local authorities lacked the resources to consult fully. This would suggest that without a significant investment in public consultation, the design of new homes will favour pastiche over progression. It does not follow that this will result in more ‘beauty’ – and beauty is subjective. 

While many questions remain about how consultation is conducted and with whom, the success of NMDCs also depends on how this additional requirement fits into the broader planning process. The Planning White Paper mentioned design codes twenty times, but the Levelling Up White Paper (the precursor to future planning legislation) mentioned design codes just twice. For design codes to have a role in the planning system, they must be fully integrated - rather than existing as a relic of a planning policy that never was.