We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Today's entry is about the extent to which good design
should be a feature of nationally significant infrastructure
projects.
Everyone agrees that the built environment should be designed to
a high standard, but what does the Planning Act regime have to say
about this and to what extent does it require it? How much
might an independent review of a project's design cost?
Read on.
On 31 May I attended a discussion convened by the Design Council CABE, and
there was an interesting discussion about incorporating design into
nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). CABE
stands for the Commission on Architecture and the Built
Environment, and it recently merged with the Design Council as a
result of the government's quango-cutting. They are now a
charity promoting design in the public interest.
In fact there are some provisions about design in the Planning
Act, but they only apply to projects indirectly. The
provisions require National Policy Statements (NPSs) to address the
achievement of good design, and since decisions on applications
should conform to the relevant NPS, this in turn puts a requirement
for good design on projects, depending on the wording of the
relevant NPS.
I tabled a paper on behalf of the National Infrastructure
Planning Association (NIPA) on the legal position on design and how
the NPSs that exist deal with it. They are all very similar but
subtly different. Let me know if you would like to see the
paper - I expect it will appear on the NIPA website in due
course.
Although design is mainly concerned with what things look like,
and that will be the principal concern of those who will have to
put up with looking at a project once it has been built, there is
of course much more to it than that. The materials used, how
efficient operation will be, and so on. Perhaps the ultimate
goal is to design infrastructure so that people actually want to
live near it - not impossible, take the Millau Viaduct in France, for
example.
The Design Council CABE is mentioned in each NPS (except the
Ports one, for some reason - one of those 'subtle
differences') as a recommended consultant on design issues for
project promoters. I can put some more flesh on that
recommendation, since the costs they would charge for a design
review were set out at the seminar.
These have a caveat that they will always be under review, and
will vary for particular projects but should give you a reasonable
idea. For a first design review, attended by members of a
panel of experts togther with Design Council CABE staff, plus a
site visit, they will charge in the region of
£11,000-£18,000. For a subsequent design review
for the same project, to be held at their London office (in Covent
Garden but moving to Angel on 22 June) they will charge around
£5,000-£8,000. More details are going to be provided in
a forthcoming document of theirs 'Design Guidance for
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects' due later
this year.
I hope that makes the idea of reviewing the design of an
infrastructure project more concrete so that it might be
incorporated into the project programme (although the result may
mean less concrete).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A discussion which highlights the main aspects which should be taken into consideration by an organisation or individual who is looking to undertake work in a territory other than in its home.
Lord Justice Jackson’s cost reforms came into force on 1 April 2013. Though primarily aimed at personal injury litigation, the reforms will affect construction and engineering litigation.
The Court of Appeal has recently refused to amend a legal charge registered at the Land Registry, even though it would have given effect to the parties’ common intention (which had been mistakenly missed out of the charge).
With the current economic climate, landlords are increasingly finding that they have vacant units which they will often wish to secure occupation of on a short term basis, while they market the unit for a longer term let.
Following Judge Pelling QC’s decision in Leisure Norwich (2) Limited & Others v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration) & Others [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch) (reported in the June 2012 edition of BDB’s Property & Insolvency Bulletin), rent which is incurred prior to a tenant going into administration must be proved like any other pre-administration debt and cannot be paid as an expense of the administration.
The construction sector accounts for nearly 10% of the UK economy and the Government frequently emphasises the important role the sector will play in achieving economic growth.
For many years the appeal courts have been concerned with determining what character of building is a 'house' for the purposes of enfranchisement rights.
The FIDIC Contracts Committee has issued a Guidance Note dealing with the powers of, effect of and the enforcement of Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) decisions.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
