Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The government’s focus on design codes can help to create well-designed and beautiful places, and provide clarity for developers about what is expected, supporting a faster, more transparent planning system, and bringing in the democratic process of engaging people in the transformation of their places early on, as part of the plan making process.

Introducing the key learnings

We evaluated the Pathfinder teams over nine months and distilled their experiences to identify the most pertinent programme learnings. We shared emerging findings with an enabling panel of Design Council Experts, DLUHC, the Office for Place Advisory Board and the Pathfinders themselves at two strategic points over the course of the programme. The findings, ordered to correspond with the stages of the NMDC, are summarised below and outline specific activities that need to be considered by teams for successful coding:

1. Building a skilled and committed coding team

Pathfinders said they would have benefitted from dedicating sufficient time to assess the skills and resources available to produce the design code. They reflected that development management officers were key stakeholders to determine the areas of focus for the code content and its implementation, followed by the relevant Highways Authority.

There was a preference for preparing codes in-house, provided that the skills and funding were available. Those Pathfinders with dedicated resource committed to the design coding project had a better experience developing their codes, and saw design coding as a positive investment in their future.

Though many local authorities had to rely on commissioning consultants, as they lacked the in-house expertise needed to prepare design codes. Responsiveness, and an openness to being adaptable and flexible, were key markers of a good Pathfinder/ consultant relationship. The procurement of consultants sometimes took longer than intended. On average, it took eight weeks to procure consultants, and forty per cent of Pathfinders said that this caused delays to the programme. This was not necessarily a bad thing. One Pathfinder told us:

We were the last to appoint consultants, but I’d argue that is because we spent a lot of time getting the brief right, which is probably why our code journey went so well.

2. Scoping the framework for design coding

The process of developing a code was easier for those Pathfinders with an up-todate local plan, and/or other up-to-date planning guidance. If this was not the case, then at this scoping stage, Pathfinders needed to be aware of how they were intending to incorporate the design code into an emerging local plan’s policies, or an adopted local plan’s review process.

Some Pathfinders developed a policy matrix, which enabled them to align their code to existing policies and identify where gaps existed. Others, however, found that the aspirations they had for their codes conflicted with existing policies, which was a challenge to writing objective requirements.

Pathfinders took different approaches from starting with detailed character analysis and generalising upwards, to asking development managers for their top three design issues. Whichever route was taken, the most successful Pathfinders were those that focused on a smaller number of design issues.

3. Devising the engagement strategy

Despite the requirement for all local planning authorities to have a statutory, up-to-date Statement of Community Involvement in place, Pathfinders believed that design codes could play a critical role in increasing community participation in the planning system. Either through centring the community’s needs and wants in the code itself, defining how to engage with the local community as part of future applications or embedding community participation in planning through design reviews, for example.

Achieving representative engagement was a challenge for most Pathfinders. Many had not formally determined who they would target, and the best ways to reach them. This lack of forward-planning or research led, in some cases, to poor and unrepresentative engagement.

4. Identifying design champions

Having strong champions was helpful to all Pathfinders to the development of the code, and their enthusiasm and commitment were important to Pathfinders, who felt bolstered by this support, and more confident in pushing for high-quality codes. We identified four kinds of champions that supported Pathfinder teams: technical champions understanding the planning system and supporting the technical development of the code; department leads connecting different workstreams; executive leaders securing the engagement of seldom heard stakeholders; and political champions securing the long-term buy-in needed for eventual adoption and implementation of design codes in the local planning system.

5. Determining area types

The most successful Pathfinders already understood what an area type was and how to use it as a spatial planning tool. Those who did not quite understand the term struggled with determining area types. They had difficulty in seeing how coding could be developed in a locally specific way, to build on existing strengths.

Pathfinders in rural areas found it challenging applying the predominantly urban examples of area types that are indicated in the NMDC, to their local contexts.

6. Working at different scales

The challenge of working at different scales was significant. Many Pathfinders preparing authority-wide codes struggled to determine the appropriate level of detail for the scale of code. Generally, by the end of the programme, it was understood that:

The more specific the code, the more musts you can have… so, at a district level, there will also be a high proportion of shoulds. And as you zoom in with a greater level of certainty to a neighbourhood level, or even a parcel level, that’s where the frequency of must-haves increases.

7. Writing an implementable code

Some Pathfinders found it challenging to use coding appropriate language and struggled to achieve a balance between guidance and coding. Many of their codes were drafted from a policy perspective, rather than setting out clear rules, and were excessively long documents. Writing in general took much longer than anticipated, as refining the code and distilling it into key requirements (the musts) and guidance (the shoulds, or coulds) was a highly iterative and collaborative process. Checklists and trackers helped to simplify codes, and their ‘yes/no’ nature helped to underscore the degree of design code conformity.

Don’t underestimate the amount of time needed to churn through everything and come out with a workable code.

8. Sharing learning around testing, adoption and implementation

Pathfinders had begun to test their codes with development management officers and developers – a vital step in developing useable codes – at the time of writing this report. Many Pathfinders were intending to use their design codes to build on and provide more detailed advice and guidance on policies in their development plans, and this was easiest for those with up-to-date local plans that included generic design policies. In these circumstances, the code could be adopted as an SPD, after following a statutory consultation process. For those Pathfinders with an emerging, new local plan, or where an adopted local plan was undergoing review, the draft policies and supporting text could be changed to reflect the code.

9. Additional guidance

Pathfinders asked for more guidance on developing authority-wide codes, on determining area types and on the specifics of coding for certain geographies and scales. They also asked for support on how to carry out effective engagement, how to develop digital codes and more expert input into addressing policy areas. In particular, there were perceived knowledge gaps in how to write codes that tackled specific issues such as achieving net zero, complying with biodiversity net gain legislation in force from November 2023 onwards, meeting housing land supply requirements and promoting active travel.

BPTW