Number 15 February 1991
A review of current Architectural and Environmental Issues and events in the Cambridge area produced by theCambridge Association of Architects. The views in this newsletter are those of the individual contributors and not of the association. Newsletter co-edited by David Raven and Colen Lumley. ‘Cambridge Architecture’ Trumpington Mews, Trumpington, Cambridge. This CAA discussion on Design Advisory Panels was one of the last major architectural events at Ibstock. Forty or so attended. Participants included members of theCity Listed Buildings Panel and the South Cambridgeshire Architects Advisory Panel together with planning officers working inboth authorities. The evening was chaired by Colen Lumley.
A recent RIBA questionnaire has asked about the Associations experience of Up••ign Panels. The RIBA hope toissue national guidelines to members on this subject in due course. There has also been quitea bit of press publicity on the issues during last year, (see BD 16/2, 9/3, 4/5, 12/10& 16/11) for example on the dispute between Moxley Jenner and the West London Society of Architects, and on the views of some MP's who want compulsory design panels and planners to takea more active part in design; ‘Design has not been theprovince of planners in the past — we think it ought tobe”. There was also the RFAC report in May on “Planning forBeauty” which encourages local authorities to set up architectural advisory panels and to draw up local guidelines (asa checklist rather thana straightjacket), to include planning and context (density, site coverage, bulk, height, street alignment, landscape, •.ction of views, rights to sunlight and v .d protection), community impact (usage, street plans, creation and use of public space, accessibility and fitness for purpose) and visual effect (materials, colour, silhouette, scale, proportion, rhythm, ornament, works of art and fenestration). They also require submissions to show proposals in context and to be supported bya design statement. Even thethen Secretary of State, Chris Patten who felt earlier in the year that an interventionist approach by local authorities would notimprove standards, had by November announced plans to establish design codes. These aretoguide architects and developers not on style but on scale, layout and public space and relationships witha buildings immediate neighbours. For more “sensitive areas” the guidelines could “suggest certain sorts of detail based ona careful analysis of an area's architectural character”. But he makes clear that this should be thought of asa checklist rather thana rigid formula. Architects views on thevalue of design panels judging by the recent ACA debate
DESIGN PANELS A considerable body oflocal architects voluntarily contribute their design skills and experience, to design panels, to providing informed disinterested professional opinion in the assessment of applications for development. Why do they do this? It can only be out ofa commitment tothecause of safeguarding and cultivating the quality of our built environment and to contributing toa wider dialogue within the community ofwhat is appropriate. Other reasons do not bear thinking about. This and other questions are the stuff of this winter newsletter and constitutea sequel to an overflowing CAA discussion evening on3 December. David Raven reports on the evening and discusses some related issues. remain divided between thecommon sense view “It is reasonable for people who live in an area to havea say ina buildings appearance. For this they need professional advice and qualified architects rather than unqualified planners are the best people to consult” — to the emotional “if any design panel criticises my scheme I'll sue them”. In our own debate no one seemed tobe against design panels in principle perhaps because most ofthose present were participating in them. One participant felt that aesthetic criticism was ‘spiked with arrogance’ and that it was all reallya matter of opinion and depended on the fashions of the times. The general view was that quality and appropriateness is what is looked forrather thana particular style. There wasa strong sense of regret at the loss of the City Architects Panela few
years ago anda wish at least amongst private architects and the Chairman ofthe Listed Buildings Panel that it be reinstated. Not only are Panels felt to raise standards but they help to generatea sense of partnership between council planners and private architects in the care of the environment, something which seems to have withered recently in Cambridge. With their recently extended brief the City Listed Buildings Panel are having to devote more and more oftheir time to monitoring major development proposals. It was suggested thata newly formed Architects Panel could work along side them. Concerning themakeup ofPanels some felt thata small number ofexperienced architects “with mud on their boots” and/or “a proven track record in design” would be most effective. There would be more continuity and advice given might be more consistent than ifa large number of architects service the panel. But who can spare the time particularly if site visits are needed? People seem tobe prepared to volunteer only if there isa relatively small amount oftime involved. Development pressures and application numbers have steadily increased over theyears and it is no longer possible to run things with small bands of experienced people unless of course they are paid. Given planning application charges and now council consultancy fees perhaps panel members should also be paid. Sensitivity and good judgement does not of course just come with experience. The opposite can be true. The South Cambs Panel hasa mix of young and older architects with varying experience and backgrounds which must be ofmutual benefit. In the South Cambs rota three or four members always carry forward to the next monthly meeting. Each member serves for two consecutive months and there is an overlap between members of thegroup over three months. It is difficult to achieve greater continuity without more time being given by individual members. We have 36 architects servicing this. Would say 9 architects be prepared to give the equivalent amount oftime?
A number ofparticipants thought there was a danger of panel discussions being too free ranging. They called for Architects Panels to havea clear structure and ground rules and to provide good clear