I remember one year a fantastic scheme by a fantastic architect was shortlisted for the Stirling Prize. No surprises there. A lot of thought goes into curating the contenders for the UK’s top architectural prize. Yet the year before the same building couldn’t even muster a regional RIBA! It was a neat illustration of how uncertain ideas of ‘good design’ can be and of how the jury’s makeup – each with their own view of what good design looks like - really matters.

Uncertainty over good design has long been baked into how architectural quality is judged. It begins at university, thrives in practice, and, as critics of design review will tell you - clients, developers and architects among them - it can shape their guidance as well. Outcomes, they say, depend too heavily on who is on the panel, not on shared standards.

Whether this is true or not is hard to prove. That kind of subjectivity is expected - even celebrated - in prize juries. But design review is different: it shapes real places, real permissions and real outcomes. It is why, perhaps, in January this year the MHCLG announced that national design guidance - four separate documents - had been consolidated into a single framework - built around seven core features. In short, this means, for the first time, national policy provides one definition of what “good design” looks like. The upshot? More consistent outcomes. That’s the hope, anyway.

This is something PTE has long argued for - design review as not gatekeeper, but critical friend. Of course, this is not an original or new idea but it can be hard to realise in practice. Design review should always be rigorous, independent and challenging, yet grounded in shared standards and an understanding of how places are actually delivered.

Through our involvement in local and national panels, design codes, review guidance and professional advocacy, we’ve seen the difference it makes when review is embedded early, framed clearly, and focused on outcomes rather than style or ‘looks’.

As the planning system seeks to deliver 'new towns’ and new infrastructure at pace, the question is whether it is now equipped to operate dispassionately as part of a joined‑up system.

Time will tell, no doubt.

Ps. That fantastic scheme by the fantastic architect that couldn’t get a RIBA but then landed a Stirling Prize shortlisting? It didn’t win.