A row has broken out after housebuilders successfully revised the design code for a 5,500-home development in Devon. But how often do developers of schemes seek to amend agreed design standards?

Earlier this month, South Hams District Council approved a section 73 application seeking to amend design-related conditions attached to an outline planning permission for the 5,500-home Sherford urban extension scheme, near Plymouth.

The 2006 outline application's section 106 agreement included a design code for the site prepared by built environment charity The Prince's Foundation for Building Community. The section 106 agreement also stipulated that subsequent reserved matters applications needed to be assessed against the code by a design review panel. However, developer the Sherford Consortium, a partnership of homebuilders Bovis Homes, Linden Homes and Taylor Wimpey, sought to replace the code with a looser set of "principles" and remove the design review panel's involvement in the process.

According to the committee report: "The original town code steers designers towards a more traditional form of architecture predominantly found in urban environments and typical of the new towns developed during the 18th and 19th century." It says the applicants propose "replacing the current code with a series of town wide 'principles'" at the outline stage. "The loss of restriction will enable greater levels of architectural freedom, which would also improve the efficiency and realisation of delivering 5,500 houses."

The consortium said the decision would "allow housebuilding and the delivery of facilities at Sherford to progress at a faster rate, without losing any of the design quality".

However, the application prompted objections from both the foundation and the original applicant Red Tree, which urged the council to retain both the design code and the review panel.

Following the council's decision, Ben Bolgar, a director at the foundation, said local people, who the organisation had consulted when it prepared the original masterplan and design code, had been "betrayed". He also accused the council of "rolling over" for the developer.

Bolgar said the design code was introduced in response to local residents' concerns over traffic and design. Key elements that have been "watered down", he said, include dropping a ban on car parking spaces in front of houses, to encourage more walking. Also removed is a mandatory retail element in three of the four local neighbourhood centres as well as requirements to use locally-sourced materials. Bolgar said he was trying to lobby the communities secretary to call the application in and was examining whether a legal challenge might be a possibility.

Defending the approval, Robert Steer, chairman of the council's development management committee, said: "We are committed to high-quality housing for Sherford. While this application increases flexibility by removing specific rules, it does not take away the fundamental vision for Sherford."

Bolgar said the problem lay with volume housebuilders' "short-term profit cycle" which focuses on maximising values in the first few years rather than the longer term. He added that the case is not unique. In his objection to the application, he said the foundation has "detailed experience of such dilutions to a town code" at two other schemes it has worked on - the Upton urban extension to Northampton and the Coed Darcy scheme in Neath Port Talbot, Wales. He added: "We have seen the impacts on the form and quality of the development erode considerably as the code has been altered."

Other commentators agreed that developers frequently try to amend local authority design requirements. Professor Matthew Carmona of University College London's Bartlett School of Planning, said: "I think it's reasonably commonplace. When a new developer comes in, there's a tendency to question the existing code in place."

Carmona said developers might also seek to review a design code because the market has changed, if that impacts on a scheme's design, or in response to national policy changes. He said: "There's always a case for reviewing codes at certain strategic points in a scheme's lifetime, but if the local authority thinks the code is working, they should stand their ground and not accept any amendments. It's critical that any review is done to improve the scheme, not to dumb it down."

Sue Rowlands, director at consultancy Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design, said developers will often try to review design requirements due to cost reasons. "Most developers will try every opportunity to dumb things down and get around these requirements." In the Sherford case, Rowlands said she had a "degree of sympathy" with both the developer and local authority. "The code was written in 2008, so it's actually pretty old. It's also quite prescriptive. It's a large-scale development that will be built over many years. I can see that a more flexible code might be a good idea."

Paul Seddon, chief planner at Nottingham City Council and the Planning Officers Society's place-making spokesman, said local authorities usually used design codes to prevent "poor quality development". He added: "As a planner in local government, I take the view that all too often it's because of the track record of the volume housebuilders and the product that comes out. You're ensuring that a greater degree of quality is reached."

Rowlands said it was critical for both local authorities and developers to have a "design champion" to enforce the code. She said: "Ideally, an authority needs a good, dedicated planning officer there constantly to enforce the code over time and assess plans against them." Seddon said it was important that councils had access to "in-house skills" where possible, including shared urban design resources. "There's no substitute for having good experienced planners and urban designers."

Resource: Planning Resource