The Promotion of Sustainable Development Principles Through the Design Review Process. The Case of the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel

References

• Berke, P. (2016). Twenty years after Campbell’s Vision: Have we achieved more sustainable cities? Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(4), 380–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1214539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cambridge City Council (CCC). (2018). Cambridge Local Plan October 2018. Cambridge City Council.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC). (2003). Cambridge and Peterborough structure plan 2003. Cambridgeshire County Council.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridgeshire Horizons. (2008). Cambridgeshire quality charter for growth. Cambridgeshire Horizons.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridgeshire Quality Panel (CQP). (2019). Eighth annual report on the work of the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel for the period October 2018 to October 2019 for the Steering Group, the Quality Panel and Planning Officers. https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/8th-Annual-Report-on-the-Cambridgeshire-Quality-Panel.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cambridgeshire Quality Panel (CQP). (2020). Nineth annual report on the work of the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel for the period October 2019 to October 2020 for the Steering Group, the Quality Panel and Planning Officers. https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/9th-Annual-Report-on-the-Cambridgeshire-Quality-Panel.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, S. (2016). The planner’s triangle revisited: Sustainability and the evolution of a planning ideal that can’t stand still. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(4), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1214080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. (2009). Sustainable urban design: Definitions and delivery. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 12 (1), 48–77. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2009.027528
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. (2016). Design governance: Theorizing an urban design sub-field. Journal of Urban Design, 21 (6), 705–730730. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. (2019). Marketizing the governance of design: Design review in England. Journal of Urban Design, 24(4), 523–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1533373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., de Magalhães, C., & Natarajan, L. (2018). Design governance the CABE way, its effectiveness and legitimacy. Journal of Urbanism, 11 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2017.1341425
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, E., & Higgins, M. (2009). How planning authorities can improve quality through the design review process: Lessons from Edinburgh. Journal of Urban Design, 14 (1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802452930
   Google Scholar
• Design Council. (2013). Design review: Principles and practice. Design Council.
   Google Scholar
• Design Council. (2018). Design review insight report. Design Council.
   Google Scholar
• Durmaz-Drinkwater, B., & Platt, S. (2019). Better quality built environments: Design review panels as applied in Cambridge, England. Journal of Urban Design, 24 (4), 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1533372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farhat, R. (2019). Is semi-discretionary design review wieldy? Evidence from Seattle’s programme. Planning Practice & Research, 34 (1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2018.1548213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farhat, R. (2021). Design guidelines for wieldier discretionary review: Evidence from Portland. Journal of Urban Design, 26(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2020.1772045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practice. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glavič, P., & Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(18), 1875–1885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Planners Network. (2018). Vancouver Declaration 2006: World Planners Congress, Vancouver, Canada: Global Planners Network. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from http://www.globalplannersnetwork.org
   Google Scholar
• Hassel Limited. (2011). Design review research. Prepared for Green Building Council of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, J. (1994). Urban design: The American Experience. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., & Forester, J. (2012). How design review staff do far more than regulate. URBAN DESIGN International, 17(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2012.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macdonald, E. (2016). The planning dimension of sustainable urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 21(1), 43–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1114378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). (2019). National design guide: Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places. MHCLG.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG). ( 2021) National planning policy framework. MHCLG.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (2002). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems and planning projects. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Paterson, E. (2011). Design review in the UK: Its role in town planning decision-making. URBAN DESIGN International, 16 (2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2011.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platt, S. (2015). Design Review: What is it for and what does it achieve? Planning Advisory Service. DCLG.
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. (2003). From design advice to peer review. The role of the urban design panel in Vancouver. Journal of Urban Design, 8 (2), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800306483
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. (2011). Design review – An effective means of raising design quality? In Urban design in the real estate process, edited by S. Tiesdell and D. Adams, 182–198. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. (2019). Design review in Wales: The role of the design commision for Wales. Journal of Urban Design, 24 (4), 605–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1557514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raco, M. (2007). Building sustainable communities: Spatial policy and labour mobility in post-war Britain. The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Razaghi, T. (2018). Sydney sees “cultural shift” as major projects subject to design review panels. https://www.domain.com.au/news/sydney-sees-cultural-shift-as-major-projects-subject-to-design-review-Panels-20180404-h0yc5g/
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, R., & White, J. (2021). Design Governance, austerity and the public interest: Planning and the delivery of “well designed places”. Planning Theory & Practice, 22(4), 572–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1958911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, A., & Thomas, R. (2009). Sustainable urban design: An environmental approach. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Scheer, B. C. (1994). Introduction: The debate on design review. In Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control, edited by B. C. Scheer and W. F. E. Preiser, 1–10. Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC). (2018). South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, South Cambridgeshire District Council.
   Google Scholar
• UK Parliament. (2021). Planning for the future: Planning policy changes in England in 2002 and future reforms. UK Parliament.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations (UN). (2020). Sustainable development goal 11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/
   Google Scholar
• White, J. (2016). Pursuing design excellence: Urban design governance on Toronto’s waterfront. Progress in Planning, 110, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2015.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J., & Chapple, H. (2018). Beyond design review: Collaborating to create well-designed places in Scotland. Journal of Urban Design, 24(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1529537
   Google Scholar
• World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). The Brundtland Report: Our common future. UN Department of Public Information.
   Google Scholar