The rise and rise of design review panels

A Design Review Panel at work

• Increase image
• View all images

The success of your is project is more likely than ever to lie in the hands of an unelected committee of your peers.

'There is,' says Kathy MacEwen, CABE's head of design review programme, 'a growing trend for design review panels (DRPs) across the country.'
The explosion of DRPs – sometimes called Architectural Appraisal Panels (AAPs) – in London backs her statement up. In the last three years, eight of London's 33 boroughs – Merton, Kingston, Southwark, Lewisham, Newham, Kensington and Chelsea, Haringey and Richmond – have formed DRPs or are in the process of doing so.
And nationally, MacEwen's assertion is borne out by the stream of architects turning up to review the work of their peers in cities like Leeds, Barnsley, Sheffield, Bristol, Manchester, Chester, Liverpool, Hull, Walsall, Coventry, Plymouth and Birmingham.
It is all a far cry from the days when the Royal Fine Art Commission – formed in 1924 – acted as the arbiter of architectural taste. That changed in 1999 when CABE was established.
A key CABE remit was the design review of 'significant' English schemes (see box on page
13 for definition of significant schemes). CABE chief executive Richard Simmons says that of 2,000 schemes reviewed, 'eight out of 10' practices say that the process has resulted in improved schemes. Further down the chain, CABE advises – but does not fund – six of the UK's regions'own design review panels (see chart, above right). But it is beneath this tier that the revolution is gathering pace.
The Southwark DRP was formed three years ago. Its leader, Steve Riches, says that in the last 12 months it has received delegates from a number of other boroughs and local authorities keen on setting up DRPs – most recently Newham, Kensington and Chelsea, and Sheffield.
Riches says that his overriding goal as head of the DRP – which last year reviewed around 70 applications – is that 'people should understand what best
practice is at a local level.'
He says: 'Although we have some very exciting schemes, there are lots of areas where that level of design attention is not there. 'We want to use the panel to raise the bar, not just along the river but also in areas like Peckham and the Aylesbury Estate in Elephant and Castle.
But that bar can only be raised against a backdrop of understanding and respect between planning committees and the DRP panels; a situation that is not always apparent.

Terry Pawson's Twin House scheme was rejected by Kingston planners despite a glowing design review

• Increase image
• View all images

Terry Pawson, of Terry Pawson Architects, sits on the London Borough of Merton's DRP, and is unsurprisingly supportive of the DRP process. However, he had a run-in with Kingston planning
committee after his Twin House scheme (see page 14) was rejected despite a glowing design review, which concluded: 'We feel the buildings have a coherence and elegance that draw deeply from the landscape and enhance the character of the [Coombe Hill] Conservation Area.'
But the planners rejected the scheme, saying the houses 'would, by their design, mass and bulk, have an incongruous appearance to the detriment of the character of the conservation area'.
The project is now going through the appeal process, but whatever the finaloutcome, Pawson says the DRP had been compromised by the committee ruling.
He says: 'I feel very sorry for those people that put their time and energy [into the DRP] because it does devalue their efforts and undermines what they are trying to do.
'If the local authority goes against a significant recommendation, it seems to me that it should probably justify very strongly why it has gone against that advice, otherwise it completely emasculates the DRP.
Paul Finch, former deputy chair of CABE, and the body's first head of design review, wonders if DRPs should even waste their time calling in schemes by architects that have a trusted pedigree. 'The big problem,' he says, 'is the mediocre stuff that gets permission. Why is Terry Pawson, a really good
architect, getting called in?'

Lubetkin Prize-winning practice Glenn Howells suffered a similar fate to Pawson when he faced the Southwark DRP. An architect on the panel says: 'I found myself talking about too much glass here etc., and I thought: "hang on a minute, why don't you just trust him?".'
More serious than damaged egos is, says Finch, the spectre of 'endless competing DRPs'.
He says: 'People setting up DRPs must avoid replication. There are enough planning applications to go round.'
The proliferation of DRPs is not uncommon. In the West Midlands, despite the existence
of the CABE-endorsed regional DRP – Midlands Architecture + the Designed Environment (MADE) – it seems that which panel reviews your scheme depends on whereabouts you are.
MADE design review manager Julie Morgan says: 'Where we are aware of local DRPs, a representative of this group may be invited to attend to feed into the design review process. We advocate a joined-up approach.'
But this 'joined-up approach' does not include a working relationship with the region's most important conurbation – Birmingham. 'To date,' says Morgan, 'MADE has not had a scheme from Birmingham City Council (BCC).'
Despite such problems, the overriding feeling among architects is that too much peerled design review is preferable to too little. 'Would DRPs be necessary in an ideal world?' asks Finch. 'No, not if we had fabulous planning departments full of eminently qualified people with great judgement – but that just isn't the way the system works.'
David Howarth, director of DRDH Architects and member of Sheffield's Urban Design Review Panel, agrees, but says large schemes can come with complicated planning stories.
'It is very easy to criticise planners but it is also easy to say if we like something then we should build it. The conversation [at the DRP] may purely have been about facades or how responds to the city, where actually there may be other concerns about amenity, residential design, sustainability.
'Design reviews are part of the planning process. They are one cog in the mechanism,' he adds.
While they may only be a 'cog' Howarth says DRPs are a very powerful tool for architects. 'You find that a lot of architects are powerless,' he says, 'The DRP process frees them to have debates in public.'
As to whether DRPs should rise above their current nonstatutory status, Howarth is clear: 'Sometimes architects can get a little arrogant, so, no, I certainly don't agree that it [the DRP] should have the last say.'

CABE SAYS SCHEMES ARE 'SIGNIFICANT' ENOUGH TO REVIEW:

• if they are 'large' or contain multiple uses;
• if the scheme's site may have 'exceptional effects on its locality'; and
• if they have an importance greater then their size would suggest, and may therefore 'establish planning form or architectural quality for future schemes'

HOW DRPS WORK:

• They typically have no statutory powers;
• schemes are recommended for review by planning case officers;
• they have 20-40 panel members;
• the 'significant majority' of panellists are architects – but they may also be artists, engineers and planners;
• 8-10 members sit on each review; and
• Each member is expected to dedicate one afternoon a month