GP/PP: People and place responsive design

It is accepted that good design is highly subjective. However, the planning system has allowed the steady homogenisation of built environments, with a dominance of bland, monotonous "identikit" housing estates from major housebuilders.

The bold ambitions of draft policy GP/PP are supported, particularly the proposed use of design Guides/Codes to set out the design expectations for a particular area. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go well beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.

However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework, such as the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources, and lifespan. Developments which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast­ tracked through the application process.

Firstly, it is unusual to have two separate policies on design.
It is accepted that good design is highly subjective. However, the planning system has allowed the steady homogenisation of built environments, with a dominance of bland, monotonous "identikit" housing estates from major housebuilders.
Design Guides/Codes are acceptable on large scale, strategic developments, but should not be imposed on smaller scale developments where other mechanisms, including parameter plans, can adequately achieve similar and proportionate outcomes. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go well beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.
However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework, such as the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources, and lifespan. Developments which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast­ tracked through the application process.
Additional measures should be introduced for strategic scale development to avoid monotony. For example, the policy could introduce a minimum number of individual house types, appropriate to the scale of development.

Firstly, it is unusual to have two separate policies on design.
It is accepted that good design is highly subjective. However, the planning system has allowed the steady homogenisation of built environments, with a dominance of bland, monotonous "identikit" housing estates from major housebuilders.
Design Guides/Codes are acceptable on large scale, strategic developments, but should not be imposed on smaller scale developments where other mechanisms, including parameter plans, can adequately achieve similar and proportionate outcomes. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go well beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.
However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework, such as the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources, and lifespan. Developments which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast­ tracked through the application process.
Additional measures should be introduced for strategic scale development to avoid monotony. For example, the policy could introduce a minimum number of individual house types, appropriate to the scale of development.

The bold ambitions of draft policy GP/PP are supported - particularly the proposed use of design Guides/Codes to set out the design expectations for a particular area. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.
However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework. For example, the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources and lifespan. Schemes which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast­ tracked through the application process.

Firstly, it is unusual to have two separate policies on design. Is this really necessary?
It is accepted that good design is highly subjective. However, the planning system has allowed the steady homogenisation of built environments, with a dominance of bland, monotonous "identikit" housing estates from major housebuilders.
Design Guides/Codes are acceptable on large scale, strategic developments, but should not be imposed on smaller scale developments where other mechanisms, including parameter plans, can adequately achieve similar and proportionate outcomes. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.
However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework, such as the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources, and lifespan. Schemes which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast-tracked through the application process.
Additional measures should be introduced for strategic scale development to avoid monotony. For example, the policy could introduce a minimum number of individual house types, appropriate to the scale of development.

It is accepted that good design is highly subjective. However, the planning system has allowed the steady homogenisation of built environments, with a dominance of bland, monotonous "identikit" housing estates from major housebuilders.
The bold ambitions of draft policy GP/PP are supported, particularly the proposed use of design Guides/Codes to set out the design expectations for a particular area. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go well beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.
However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework, such as the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources, and lifespan. Developments which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast­ tracked through the application process.
Additional measures should be introduced for strategic scale development to avoid monotony. For example, the policy could introduce a minimum number of individual house types, appropriate to the scale of development.

It is accepted that good design is highly subjective. However, the planning system has allowed the steady homogenisation of built environments, with a dominance of bland, monotonous "identikit" housing estates from major housebuilders.
Design Guides/Codes are acceptable on large scale, strategic developments, but should not be imposed on smaller scale developments where other mechanisms, including parameter plans, can adequately achieve similar and proportionate outcomes. Local community input will also be as stated, and a robust consultation process will be needed since the 'devil will be in the detail'; these documents must go well beyond broad requirements for new homes to be 'in keeping' with the character and appearance of the area.
However, it will take time for these design guides to be drafted and adopted. In the interim, developers could be signposted towards an alternative framework, such as the National Design Guide, which includes 10 characteristics of a well-designed place: context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources, and lifespan. Developments which can demonstrate a high standard of design should be fast­ tracked through the application process.
Additional measures should be introduced for strategic scale development to avoid monotony. For example, the policy could introduce a minimum number of individual house types, appropriate to the scale of development.

Taylor Wimpey support the approach that development should have regard to its context in design terms. The opening of the policy wording states that ‘the policy will require all applicants to demonstrate how their proposals sustain and enhance the unique qualities of the Greater Cambridge area and the subtleties in the different landscape and settlement forms.’ This wording suggests that all developments will need to address all of the qualities of the Greater Cambridge area through development, which is clearly unachievable and unreasonable. It is therefore suggested that this wording is amended to state that this is ‘as appropriate to the local context of the development site’.

Countryside support the vision for achieving high quality design in Greater Cambridge. Given the significant differences in character found across the area, it will be important that developments respond to local context rather than a homogenised Greater Cambridge character. It is therefore suggested that the policy wording is amended to state that this is ‘as appropriate to the local context of the development site’.

We are concerned that by merging the local plan with South Cambs the detail relating to the special
character of the city may be diluted:
Developments within Cambridge should enhance the character of the city.
The local plan should be clearer about which local characteristics we want to maintain, and which we
want to see no more of.
For example, we’d be happy to see more roads like Willow Walk, we’d be happy never to see another
Station Road.
We would like to see discussion of giving protection to views and approaches. For example, Sheffield
Local Plan seems to have more protection for views because the hills offer a few really distinctive views.
Oxford and Edinburgh seem to have more comprehensive protected views, where we only seem to have
a mention of views into and out of the conservation area which hasn't helped to protect Station Road,
Hills Road or Histon Road from ugly development.
Construction seems to cut a lot of corners, many homes have poor insulation and soundproofing.
We would like to see an analysis of why the last Local Plan has allowed so many dire buildings, to inform
improvements this time around.