Conclusions
Conclusions
The KDI set out to be a broadly based campaign, primarily to give those with a vested interest in development within Kent an opportunity to contribute to the process and take ownership of the KDG when it is produced. The concept has already reaped considerable benefits with 25 bodies represented on the steering group, 60 organisations on the working groups and more than 100 additional contributors to conferences, seminars and workshops. The expertise, time and enthusiasm which have been made available to the KDI has produced a wealth of ideas and provided an invaluable testing ground for the principles that might be carried forward into the KDG. There has also been positive feedback from partners, relating to the pace and quality of the work that has already been produced.
The KDI has emphasised the interaction between different aspects of design; for example, it has recognised the role that landscaping can play in creating a safer environment as a traffic calming tool and in creating new wildlife habitats. A similar interrelationship exists between the desire to encourage more walking and cycling in order to reduce pollution and to populate the streets in order to promote community safety.
The KDI has recognised that sustainability is not an end in itself. It is important not only to market the principles of sustainable development but also to give practical advice to developers on how these principles might be implemented. The KDI did not set out to re-invent the wheel, but to draw on best practice wherever possible. While some of the ideas that have been promoted by the working groups may no longer seem particularly innovative, the uniqueness of the KDI is in the effort that is being taken to explore how the goals of sustainable development can be translated into a workable and enforceable design guide, embraced by all those with an interest in development in Kent.
Perhaps the KDI's greatest strength has been the constructive dialogue between traditionally opposing sectors. The KDI has already raised awareness amongst organisations and authorities within Kent of the value of sustainable development. Parties have been able to recognise and discuss each other's respective positions in a constructive fashion. The involvement of the Government Office for the South East has been valuable to the KDI because it enabled the national debate on sustainability to be furthered at the local level. The ultimate test for the new KDG will be how developers and controllers respond to the challenge offered by more flexibility. There are some concerns that objectives rather than standards may be more difficult to enforce, and that any case studies and illustrations may be interpreted as new standards. The success of a more flexible approach is certainly dependent to a large extent on the willingness of all partners in the development process to collaborate and invest in the design process. That investment includes making the necessary time, skills and resources available to ensure that real improvements can be seen, both in terms of physical development and people's actions.
Notes
- Kent TEC, Council for the Protection of Rural England, English Heritage, Government Office for the South East, House Builders' Federation, Institute of Civil Engineers, Kent County Council, Kent Developers' Group, Kent Institute of Art and Design, Kent Planning Officers Group, Kent Technical Officers Association, Landscape Institute, Royal Institute of British Architects, University of Greenwich, Women's Institute, Kent Police, Soroptomist International, Kent Federation of Amenity Societies.
- The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily those of Kent County Council or the KDI.
Abigail Raymond is Team Leader, Regeneration & Design, Strategic Planning, Kent County Council.
This chapter is reproduced by kind permission of Taylor and Francis (incorporating Routledge and E & FN Spon)
