There are a few issues that we are mindful of as we work on the Design Code. We would particularly welcome any thoughts on the following:
Have we missed anything?
We have created a structure for our proposed Design Code and are planning to include new topics in the design code that were not mentioned in the older design guides – dark skies, energy efficiency and biodiversity (including net gain) would be some. Are there any other gaps?
See the structure of our proposed design code
How ‘prescriptive’ should our Design Code be, given the context of the North York Moors?
The Government has made clear that, unlike design guides, codes should set clear design standards which must be adhered to. Codes will be a policy requirement rather than good practice, and hence if design does not comply planning permission would not be forthcoming. In policy terms, it is the difference between ‘must’ rather than ‘should.’
The origins of design codes lie in site-based planning where it is easy to see how a code can be put in place over building heights, frontages and layout. In the North York Moors, however, we are dealing with 105 small and often quite different places. One of the lessons from pathfinder authorities who were first to develop work on design codes was that those covering rural areas found it challenging to apply urban typologies to their context and that at district wide level there were far more ‘shoulds’ rather than ‘musts’ in codes.
We welcome any thoughts on how prescriptive our Design Code should be, and if so on what aspects of design?
How do we protect the traditional vernacular of the North York Moors built environment whilst not stifling bold new design and innovation?
As a planning authority, we see few proposals that are contemporary in their design approach. The built areas we love today – from the coastal fishing village to the valley bottom agricultural and mining villages have one thing in common – uniformity and scale that make them interesting, charming, visually pleasing and culturally different. Good design can help bridge the gap between the traditional and contemporary in a way that respects and interprets the historical character differently.
We welcome any thoughts on how we can use the Design Code to encourage innovative design whilst fitting in with our existing built heritage.
How do we use design to help adapt to climate change and mitigate its effects – particularly how older buildings can best be retrofitted to use less energy and produce fewer emissions?
Our buildings must use less energy, and more renewable energy. One of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the National Park is from our dwelling stock, which compared to other areas contains a higher proportion of traditional (pre-1919) buildings. We also know that inappropriate retrofit measures can lead to unintended consequences and actually shorten the lifespan of the building and negatively impact the health of its occupants. We are developing guidance on how ‘healthy retrofit’ can be used in this National Park.
Do you have any thoughts – or examples - as to how a Design Code can best respond to the threat of climate change?
How do we make sure new development is kind to the environment around it?
At the same time Design Codes are being introduced, ‘biodiversity net gain’ (BNG) has been introduced into the planning system. Under the rules of BNG a site, once developed, must increase its biodiversity value by at least 10%, as calculated through a metric.
We are keen to encourage nature recovery by making sure new development is as species friendly as possible. Simple, small things such as using swift bricks, or bat boxes can help, and we’re also seeing evidence that dark sky friendly lighting makes a difference.
Do you have any thoughts – or examples- as to how a Design Code can best be used to maximise Biodiversity Net Gain or encourage nature recovery?