Why we published an open-source Code of Conduct for Design Review Panels

A Design Review Panel session. Panellists drawn from architecture, planning, landscape and urban design disciplines review a development proposal.

As government moves to place design review more firmly within mainstream planning practice, we have published a free, open-source Code of Conduct — a model-neutral governance framework for independent design review in England.

Design review has been part of the English planning landscape for years, but it has never had a single, widely recognised governance standard. Different panels operate under different models, with different levels of procedural transparency, and with varying approaches to the questions that matter most: independence, conflicts of interest, the status of panel feedback, and the relationship between the panel, the applicant and the decision-maker. The result is a patchwork. Some of it works well. Some of it is difficult for anyone outside the process to assess.

Timeline of Key Policy Developments: The NPPF was adopted as a national policy in December 2024. A draft design and placemaking PPG is set for consultation from January to March 2026, leading to the publication of a model-neutral governance framework, highlighted as free and open-source, under the Code of Conduct.

That matters now more than it has before, because the policy direction is towards giving design review greater weight. The current NPPF already expects local planning authorities to have access to, and encourage appropriate use of, design review — particularly for significant projects such as major housing and mixed-use developments — and to take into account the outcomes of those processes. The draft Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance, consulted on between January and March 2026, goes further. It seeks to consolidate existing guidance into a single, more accessible resource, and its draft policy DP4 would place greater emphasis on design quality throughout the evolution, assessment and delivery of development proposals.

These are different instruments with different legal weight — the NPPF is adopted national policy; the PPG, when finalised, will be guidance — but the trajectory they describe is the same. Design review is being asked to do more. If it is to carry that weight credibly, the governance behind it needs to be visible, testable and consistently applied.

That is why we have published the Code.

What the Code of Conduct does

The Code of Conduct for Design Review Panels is a model-neutral governance framework. It is free to use, open-source, and intended as a resource for the whole sector: independent panels, panels operated by or on behalf of local planning authorities, applicants, promoters and design teams. It is not tied to any single delivery model and does not presuppose any particular commercial arrangement.

A design team presents a masterplan to the Panel. The Code covers how such sessions should be governed, from panel composition to the status of written feedback.

It covers seven areas of practice. Panel composition should be fair, representative and drawn from a national pool of appropriately qualified professionals. The relationship between panels and commissioning bodies should be clear and transparent, with commissioning arrangements unable to influence panel composition, the conduct of reviews, or the content of panel comment. Panels should be well managed, with a panel manager who is structurally separate from both the commissioning body and the local planning authority. Feedback should be high-quality, proportionate, expressed as observations and suggestions rather than advice or recommendations, and issued through a written report that reflects the collective view of the panel. The process should be informed by national and local policy. Conflicts of interest should be declared, managed and recorded. And governance arrangements — including the legal entity operating the panel, its leadership, and any material commercial relationships — should be publicly available.

The Code also incorporates the Nolan Principles of Public Life, requires that all contextual input is shared transparently within the review session itself rather than through private briefings, and provides that where a scheme has previously been reviewed by another panel, that earlier feedback should form part of the material considered.

None of this is revolutionary. Most of it reflects what good panels already do. The point of codifying it is to make the standard visible, so that everyone involved — applicants, authorities, inspectors, communities — can see what is expected and test whether it is being met.

Design review panel independence is structural, not just verbal

The Code’s treatment of independence deserves particular attention, because it goes beyond the usual assurances.

Most panels describe themselves as independent. Fewer spell out what they mean by it. The Code addresses this directly. It requires structural independence in thinking, processes and conclusions, maintained regardless of who commissions or funds a review. It requires that the panel manager is not an officer, employee or agent of the commissioning body or local planning authority. It requires that panel member identities are not disclosed in advance to commissioning parties, that conflicts of interest are declared and managed through a documented process, and that the written feedback document — not the views of any individual panellist — constitutes the panel’s output.

The importance of impartiality in design review panels: ensuring applicants and authorities trust the separation of decision-making processes.

This matters because design review credibility depends on separation in two directions at once. Applicants and their design teams need confidence that the panel is genuinely separate from the decision-maker and is not a proxy for the local authority’s own position. Equally, local authorities, inspectors and the public need confidence that the panel is separate from the applicant and is not simply an extension of the applicant’s professional team. If either side of that equation is compromised, the evidential value of the process is weakened.

This diagram illustrates the concept of two-directional independence in design reviews, emphasizing the need for a neutral Design Review Panel that maintains clear separation from both the Applicant & Design Team and the Local Planning Authority, ensuring it is neither an extension of the applicant’s team nor a proxy for the local authority’s position.

A code of conduct cannot guarantee independence on its own. It can make the standards against which independence is judged more transparent, more consistent and more capable of external scrutiny. That is what this one is designed to do.

Why this matters for major and complex proposals

The value of robust governance becomes most apparent on larger schemes — strategic housing sites, mixed-use developments, sensitive landscape proposals, and infrastructure-scale projects.

Site visits are an integral part of extended design review for major proposals, enabling panellists to understand place, context and constraints at first hand.

The NPPF already identifies design review as particularly important for significant projects. Planning Inspectorate guidance on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects emphasises that good design depends on an effective, intentional, transparent and deliverable process, supported by a collaborative multi-disciplinary approach. On proposals of that scale, the value of design review rarely lies in a single session. It lies in structured, iterative scrutiny with the right range of expertise, enough time to test the proposal properly, and a clear written record produced while the design is still capable of meaningful evolution.

For applicants and promoters working on schemes of that kind, a well-governed review process can strengthen the design audit trail, reduce ambiguity in pre-application discussions, and demonstrate that independent scrutiny has been real, structured and professionally managed. Those are practical benefits with real weight in the planning process.

A constructive offer to the sector

This Code has not been produced as an abstract exercise or a competitive gesture. It grows out of a practical concern, shared widely across the professions involved in design review, that confidence in the process depends on more than the expertise around the table. It also depends on the framework behind it.

Extended review combines formal panel sessions with site visits, enabling structured scrutiny of larger and more complex proposals over multiple stages.

The Code was shaped through discussion with experienced professionals from across planning, architecture, landscape, urban design and development. It is published openly so that others can use it, adopt it, or refer to it as they see fit. For local planning authorities, it may provide a benchmark for the safeguards that should sit behind any panel arrangement. For independent panels, it may be a useful framework against which to review their own procedures. For applicants and design teams, it may help distinguish between panels whose independence rests on process and panels whose independence rests primarily on assertion.

As design review is asked to carry more weight in the planning system, that distinction will matter increasingly. A serious governance framework helps make it possible to tell the difference.

Next steps ...