Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation

In this chapter, we summarise the experience and challenges of the Pathfinders teams in applying the National Model Design Code, with further detail provided on teams developing authority-wide codes and Neighbourhood Planning Groups.

a. Experience using National Model Design Code

$ Pathfinders reflected that the content of the NMDC was easy to understand but many found it difficult to navigate. A lack of confidence in implementing it in practice resulted in some Pathfinders being over-ambitious, by trying to cover too many themes. On reflection, Pathfinders felt that the NMDC could be improved on the following topics:

$ More guidance on how to determine area types and some more area types for different contexts for instance rural and non-residential. Pathfinders working on rural codes found that the code offered few relevant examples and guidance.

“The NMDC doesn’t identify the areas and types that we have in [our very rural area], apart from the straight ‘rural’… I think there are quite a lot of elements of the NMDC that don’t apply to us. We might be covering them because there’s an expectation to, but possibly we don’t need to. Instead, we should be more focused in the priority areas that apply to very rural areas.”

$ Pathfinders working on authority-wide design codes particularly struggled to make the NMDC guidance apply to their context and asked for case studies and tools to support them. Pathfinders also needed support on avoiding their high-level code becoming guidance, rather than a set of coded development requirements. It was noted that further training would have been useful for teams developing authority-wide codes.

“Borough-wide codes are missing from the NMDC, and it is a real challenge to do these, particularly where you’ve got varied character… A particular challenge is how you word the code. For an authority-wide design code, being strictly numbers-based is difficult because we’ve got so many different area types that the code becomes unwieldy.”

“What we [those of us developing authority-wide codes] still desperately need is some guidance on coding: how can we produce a code that’s not numbers-based? For example, for a development to be well-designed, it needs to meet all of these specific points, but our confusion is that that’s really more like a guide.”

$ Some Pathfinders thought the NMDC was asking them to produce a prescriptive code that pre-determined what high-quality design looked like, and which might inhibit an applicant’s flair and keep their area set to current typologies for years to come.

b. Developing authority-wide codes

$ All Pathfinders working at this scale went through the process of learning what was appropriate and proportionate at an authority-wide scale, and what was not. Some found that the NMDC process of mapping and defining character area types was less helpful when coding at this macro scale, and taking a less prescriptive approach helped to identify broad musts that transcended character area types.

“There is the pressure that it’s not coding without mapping, because that’s what the NMDC says. But we didn’t think mapping was right for us. We’ve got a huge area to cover; we’ve developed an alternative solution.”

“The NMDC suggests the approach dividing the district up into different area types, but we never really set out to do it that way. At the start, we were just focused on how to deliver good quality housing in some of our deprived urban neighbourhoods and help to regenerate those places.…But, as we’ve been developing the codes, we’ve been thinking, well, yes, this could apply to urban housing, but it could apply to any housing anywhere in the district.”

$ Many Pathfinders producing authoritywide codes became overwhelmed by the scale and did not know how to narrow the focus, resulting in a large scope. One Pathfinder concluded that it would have helped to have more information on the differences between design codes as traditionally understood, and the more strategic newcomer of authority-wide codes: “I think there needs to be a bit of marketing, and examples of what others have done.”

“We’re preparing a borough-wide design, it was something developers were less familiar with. They were familiar with the code for specific sites. It took time, and we had to explain it, but now they are absolutely on board that this is the new approach.”

c. Neighbourhood Planning Groups (NPGs)

$ Provisions in the Levelling up and Regeneration Bill4 mean that design requirements can be included in neighbourhood plans. Before applying to participate in the Pathfinder programme, some members of NPGs and those working in authorities with small planningand design departments did not know what design codes were. The rapid upskilling required took them longer than anticipated, usually on more constrained resources. These teams felt less able to clearly articulate, in accessible language, the purpose of a design code and the opportunity its development presented to internal and external stakeholders. There was also uncertainty expressed around how design codes relate to other local planning policies.

$ NPGs found themselves limited in their capacity to produce a design code. They were teams of residents volunteering their time and professional skills for the improvement and democratisation of planning in their area. Their enthusiasm and commitment to design codes was high, but their capacity and capability were categorically different from that of the local authority teams. NPGs felt that they required different conditions and assets before they could embark on a project of this scale, including:

• access to people with expertise, commitment and time;

• alignment with the local authority’s plan making; and

• an engaged community. They advised other NPGs to assess to what extent these factors were in place, before embarking on a design coding process.

$ NPGs benefitted from having strong local connections and knowledge, which supported the community engagement process. An opportunity was taken by one NPG Pathfinder team to feed young people’s perspectives into the code, by working with a youth group and gaining access to a hard-to-reach demographic.

$ Many NPGs struggled to engage key stakeholders, especially statutory consultees. While they had hoped that the legal weight of their neighbourhood plans would be enough to encourage stakeholders to engage, this did not always happen. Some NPGs felt they had less influence to convene stakeholders.