Question 23. How do you think we could ensure that new development is as well-designed as possible?

Strict adherence to Building Regulations, British Standards and Local Plan

Hire good architects? Also have a variety of styles, still with a cohesive structure. Don't want all developments to look the same, and look like those in the rest of the country (as many private developer builds seem to). Nothing that makes them unique to Cambridge.

No specific comments but we would add that the current system of Design Review Panels is not very effective in our opinion. Firstly, the whole process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panels are generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism.

By meeting government design guidance (when finally published).

Our Parish has a diverse range of styles and architecture representing its historic development. The overriding factors that should reflect our character in new developments are linear development, scale and gardens (i.e. small buildings & low density) rather than a particular vernacular or material choice. Enforced densities in rural communities is often inappropriate.

Cambridge City Council has a good track record in supporting well-designed new development such as that at Clay Farm / Glebe Farm, Trumpington Meadows, and North West Cambridge. These have become attractive and distinctive places which offer good quality housing, ready access to open space (such as the countryside parks in each scheme), and reasonably good transport links. This experience should be used to inform the Councils' approach to future development.

No specific comments but it is our experience that the Design Review Panel is not effective. Firstly, the process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panel is generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism.

No specific comments but it is our experience that the Design Review Panel is not effective. Firstly, the process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panel is generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism.

Copenhagen,Barcelona,Olso. Take a look into these cities and mimic them.

Good design is best achieved through planning applications. Recognition must be given to the quality of the landscape planting, materials and details both of the buildings and the public realm when creating new developments.

Good design is best achieved through planning applications. Recognition must be given to the quality of the landscape planting, materials and details both of the buildings and the public realm when creating new developments.

New developments should be designed from the start with walking and cycling a priority and private vehicles should be discouraged.

Developments must be designed with walking and cycling as priorities. Private motor vehicles should be discouraged. European style development which does not include on street parking for private cars, plus multi-unit buildings, should be encouraged. Developments should focus on developing attractive street scapes which encourage neighbourhood interactions instead of the sterile single unit based typical UK housing estates.

No specific comments but it is our experience that the Design Review Panel is not effective. Firstly, the process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panel is generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism.

No specific comments but it is our experience that the Design Review Panel is not effective. Firstly, the process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panel is generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism.

No specific comments but we would add that the current system of Design Review Panels is not very cost effective. Firstly, the whole process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panels are generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism. This will also allow applications to be determined and delivered in a timely manner.

No specific comments but we would add that the current system of Design Review Panels is not very cost effective. Firstly, the whole process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panels are generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism. This will also allow applications to be determined and delivered in a timely manner.

See response to Q21

No specific comments but we would add that the current system of Design Review Panels is not very effective in our opinion. Firstly, the whole process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panels are generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism.

No specific comments but we would add that the current system of Design Review Panels is not very cost effective. Firstly, the whole process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panels are generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism. This will also allow applications to be determined and delivered in a timely manner.

No specific comments but we would add that the current system of Design Review Panels is not very cost effective. Firstly, the whole process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panels are generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism. This will also allow applications to be determined and delivered in a timely manner.

Show the tiniest modicum of common sense. That would be a good start. Listen to what local community members say instead of relentlessly ignoring us. This is all such a futile exercise - WHY am I even bothering?

No specific comments but it is our experience that the Design Review Panel is not effective. Firstly, the process does not work well for outline planning applications. Secondly, the Panel is generally negative in their stance and seldom promote positive messages. The system needs to be reviewed to bring in far more positive and encouraging approaches rather than vague criticism.

Pigeon fully supports the aspiration in NPPF Chapter 12, to secure a high quality of design in new developments and create attractive, sustainable and useable places. The two Councils have a strong track record in securing high-quality, well-designed developments which is underpinned by a range of SPDs providing extensive guidance on design-related matters and providing clarity with regard to the two Councils’ expectations. This approach is commended but it will be important that this guidance is subject to an early review of current SPDs within the two Councils to achieve a consolidated and consistent approach across the Joint Plan area, as well as with the County Council on matters such as highway and drainage design and adoption standards. Achievement of good design at whatever scale of development is being considered, is reliant on positive discussions and engagement with the local planning authority and the Councils must ensure they have adequate and suitably qualified staffing resources to support this work if they are to have a positive effect in effectively implementing the Local Plan policies and guidance.

• New developments must follow design standards for high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure that is accessible for people of all ages and abilities. • The design of new developments must be led by a requirement to achieve a fully-permeable, high-quality, first-class cycling and walking network, including safe and attractive surroundings, along with direct and convenient public transport routes. • Where new developments or changes touch existing cycle routes, those cycle routes must be protected and must maintain their quality, priority and accessibility. If diverted, the diversion must be of high-quality and fully accessible to people of all abilities throughout the construction process. Any damage to the original cycle route must be fixed once it is reopened. • Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities. Walking, cycling and motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds and must not be mixed together – this is unsatisfactory (and unsafe) for all modes. See Parkin "Designing for Cycle traffic" https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/isbn/9780727763495

• New developments must follow design standards for high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure that is accessible for people of all ages and abilities. • The design of new developments must be led by a requirement to achieve a fully-permeable, high-quality, first-class cycling and walking network, including safe and attractive surroundings, along with direct and convenient public transport routes. • Where new developments or changes touch existing cycle routes, those cycle routes must be protected and must maintain their quality, priority and accessibility. If diverted, the diversion must be of high-quality and fully accessible to people of all abilities throughout the construction process. Any damage to the original cycle route must be fixed once it is reopened. • Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities. Walking, cycling and motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds and must not be mixed together – this is unsatisfactory (and unsafe) for all modes. See Parkin "Designing for Cycle traffic" https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/isbn/9780727763495

Every new building should be a energy producer, using different means. Every building should be a micro energy generator. Buildings should communicate with each other and balance the local grid. Each building should have some kind of energy storage.

• New developments must follow design standards for high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure that is accessible for people of all ages and abilities. • The design of new developments must be led by a requirement to achieve a fully-permeable, high-quality, first-class cycling and walking network, including safe and attractive surroundings, along with direct and convenient public transport routes. • Where new developments or changes touch existing cycle routes, those cycle routes must be protected and must maintain their quality, priority and accessibility. If diverted, the diversion must be of high-quality and fully accessible to people of all abilities throughout the construction process. Any damage to the original cycle route must be fixed once it is reopened. • Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities. Walking, cycling and motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds and must not be mixed together – this is unsatisfactory (and unsafe) for all modes. See Parkin "Designing for Cycle traffic" https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/isbn/9780727763495

The NPPF and PPG provide guidance on design. Paragraph 124 stresses the importance of design in built development. Paragraph 127 identifies some aspirations for the design of new development. Paragraph 006 (Id.26) of the PPG provides further information on design in the planning process. It states: “Design impacts on how people interact with places. Although design is only part of the planning process it can affect a range of economic, social and environmental objectives beyond the requirement for good design in its own right. Planning policies and decisions should seek to ensure the physical environment supports these objectives. The following issues should be considered: • local character (including landscape setting) • safe, connected and efficient streets • a network of greenspaces (including parks) and public places • crime prevention • security measures • access and inclusion • efficient use of natural resources • cohesive & vibrant neighbourhoods” It is suggested that the design policies in the emerging GCLP should closely reflect this national guidance. In addition, there are a number of design tools already in existence in Greater Cambridge e.g. Design and Conservation Panel, Design Enabling Panel and Design Workshops, and it is normal for design codes to be prepared for strategic sites. It is suggested that the existing approach towards assessing design matters for developments should continue.

• New developments must follow design standards for high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure that is accessible for people of all ages and abilities. • The design of new developments must be led by a requirement to achieve a fully-permeable, high-quality, first-class cycling and walking network, including safe and attractive surroundings, along with direct and convenient public transport routes. • Where new developments or changes touch existing cycle routes, those cycle routes must be protected and must maintain their quality, priority and accessibility. If diverted, the diversion must be of high-quality and fully accessible to people of all abilities throughout the construction process. Any damage to the original cycle route must be fixed once it is reopened. • Cycling infrastructure should be separate from walking facilities. Walking, cycling and motor vehicles all have significantly different speeds and must not be mixed together – this is unsatisfactory (and unsafe) for all modes. See Parkin "Designing for Cycle traffic" https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/isbn/9780727763495