TY - JOUR
T1 - The promotion of sustainable development principles through the design review process : the case of the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel
AU - Morrison, Nicky
AU - Honegger, Lidija
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - The quest to deliver sustainable development has led to a search for ways to engage all stakeholders in this collective endeavour. Currently, local planners across England and elsewhere use independent design review panels to help raise the design quality of new developments. This paper examines the extent to which such panels can instill the need to adhere to sustainable development principles. We focus on the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel, which has framed its review process around sustainable development principles, named the “4 Cs”: community, connectivity, climate, and character. Situating the panel’s work within a design governance framework, we scrutinise the value and limitations of this particular governance tool. We conclude that local planners’ ability to take forward the panel’s recommendations on delivering new developments to high sustainability standards remains problematic, compromised by national priorities and market decisions.
AB - The quest to deliver sustainable development has led to a search for ways to engage all stakeholders in this collective endeavour. Currently, local planners across England and elsewhere use independent design review panels to help raise the design quality of new developments. This paper examines the extent to which such panels can instill the need to adhere to sustainable development principles. We focus on the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel, which has framed its review process around sustainable development principles, named the “4 Cs”: community, connectivity, climate, and character. Situating the panel’s work within a design governance framework, we scrutinise the value and limitations of this particular governance tool. We conclude that local planners’ ability to take forward the panel’s recommendations on delivering new developments to high sustainability standards remains problematic, compromised by national priorities and market decisions.
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:63395
U2 - 10.1080/14649357.2022.2050282
DO - 10.1080/14649357.2022.2050282
M3 - Article
SN - 1464-9357
VL - 23
SP - 329
EP - 348
JO - Planning Theory and Practice
JF - Planning Theory and Practice
IS - 3
ER -