Writing for the reader: Strategies for crafting user-friendly design codes

A key measure of success for a design code is that people can use it and feel confident doing so. Unfortunately, design codes can be both dense and detailed, and often need to satisfy the needs of very different audiences.

Successfully meeting the needs of these audiences means carefully considering the language and visuals you use, how much information you provide and how you structure the information. In short, it means that you must write for the reader, not the writer.

Several Pathfinders had to change tack during their development process to ensure that their codes would be both useful and impactful. It makes sense, therefore, to identify your target audiences from the outset and plan your outputs with their specific needs in mind. This will avoid abortive work and editing, ultimately making the process more efficient.

Know your audiences

Design codes are relevant to a wide range of people, from professionals developing and assessing major planning applications to local communities with an interest in shaping the future of their places – and many others besides. Catering to this breadth of different needs can be a challenge.

Having a clear view on who will be using your design code early on in the process will help to ensure that the information you produce is clearly structured and pitched at the appropriate level. Not only will this improve the success of your code, but it will also help to ensure that your resources are used efficiently.

‘‘The key thing is to aim for just as clear and user-friendly a document as possible. Otherwise, design codes are not going to be a success.”

Bradford Council

The key external audiences include:

Design teams and agents. These groups will often be seeking more technical detail to inform the development of their proposals, and are likely to be comfortable with technical language, or even to prefer it. Precision and clarity will be key for these groups to understand the status of elements of the code. Providing checklists can help them to navigate multiple documents and requirements in a user-friendly way.

Homeowners. This group may wish to navigate their own applications through the planning system. However, they are often unfamiliar with the process and its associated technical terminology. They are likely to prefer shorter, more visual explanations and plain language.

Community members. The people in this group have a general interest in understanding how the places they live in might evolve. Rather than checklists, this group are more likely to prefer clear narratives and have an appreciation for baseline information and context.

Local and national landowners and developers. Although the people in this stakeholder group are professional, their perspectives might be different, particularly in terms of how the code relates to viability. A good way to engage with them to explore their needs is through existing forums. See also ‘Managing Code Creation’.

You also have a number of key internal audiences, including:

• Development management officers

• Policy officers

• Urban design officers

• Elected members

• People that you might consult about applications, including colleagues in the highways or open spaces departments

For each of these groups, the test of your code’s useability will be directly related to how efficiently they can extract the information they need. For decision-makers, you must ensure that the relevant codes and visuals are easy to identify, interpret and apply. Ultimately, the useability of the code needs to impact both the inputs (planning applications) as well as the outputs (planning decisions). Assuming that the content of your code is informed by inputs from each of these groups, success will be down to how well the content is designed for your audiences. See also ‘Bridging siloed working’ and ‘From policy to practice’.

The first draft of Gedling Borough Council’s design code offers valuable lessons about the importance of writing for the reader. While the information would serve as a useful internal resource, the team quickly realised that it was unlikely to be practical or useable for audiences who don’t understand planning or design.

An analysis of the types of application they receive on a day-to-day basis revealed that 98% are for alterations and extensions or small developments of between one and nine dwellings, implying that the vast majority of their target audience would be likely to prefer the code to be shorter and punchier.

Describing this as “a breakthrough moment”, the Gedling team understood then that the information in the draft code would have to be edited down and repackaged for different audiences, with the detail and language modified appropriately.

In the end, they produced three versions. One was for people undertaking alterations and extensions (about 10 pages long). One was for those developing small sites (about 20 pages). And finally, one was for larger operators developing big sites. Across all of them, design principles were explained with clear diagrams rather than words.