10 people completed the online survey responding to the multiple choice questions that sought respondents' views on the consultation draft Design Guide SPD Part 2. The questions asked in the survey were as follows.

1. Do you broadly agree or disagree with the guidance provided in the DGSPD Part 2 – Building Alterations and Extensions?
2. Please tell us why you chose this answer? (Optional)
3. Do you broadly agree or disagree with the guidance provided in the DGSPD Part 2 – Small Sites?
4. Please tell us why you chose this answer? (Optional)
5. Do you broadly agree or disagree with the guidance provided in the DGSPD Part 2 – Area Types?
6. Please tell us why you chose this answer? (Optional)
7. Do you broadly agree or disagree with the guidance provided in the DGSPD Part 2 – Technical Handbook?
8. Please tell us why you chose this answer? (Optional)
9. Do the documents set out a clear, realistic framework for implementing new development within Bexley?
10. Please tell us why you chose this answer? (Optional)
11. Is the guidance provided clear in how it supports homeowners, developers, landowners and decision makers?
12. Please tell us why you chose this answer? (Optional)
13. Does the guidance identify and address the key development challenges and opportunities in the borough?
14. Please tell us why you chose this answer? (Optional)
15. Are there any other important issues that you think have been missed?
16. If yes, please explain what these are and how best they could be addressed in the guidance.
17. Please share any comments about how easy the document is to use and understand.

The detailed responses to the survey were as follows.

Area Types — one response noted that the document would create a better place for everyone, whilst another was concerned the guidance would be open to exploitation by modernists that compromise actual finished quality. No changes were made in response to either comment. However, in response to the latter, the Council would note that the documents will have planning weight and, as such, developers will be required to demonstrate how they have followed and implemented the guidance.

Building Alterations and Extensions — one respondent noted a perceived overuse of "should" against "must", which was reviewed. The Design Guide SPD defines the "must, should, could" hierarchy that has been applied when drafting the guidance and followed across both Part 1 and 2. Another noted their support for the guidance in creating a more cohesive and uniform environment, instead of a messy patchwork of various designs. Someone commented that authentic traditional architecture design codes were not prevalent and that the guidance required substantial addition of this. No changes were made in response to this as guidance has been drafted to support the Bexley Local Plan, which states that design should respect the existing character and context but need not be constrained by what already exists as local character evolves over time.

Small Sites — one respondent noted a perceived overuse of "should" against "must", which was reviewed. Another re-emphasised that traditional architecture should be a forefront focus. No changes were made, for the same reasons as previously noted.

Technical Handbook — the comment received was supportive of the inclusion of more detailed information on biodiversity design considerations but considered that further alignment with national and local policy and guidance was required. This has been reflected in the guidance.

Do the documents set out a clear, realistic framework for implementing new development within Bexley? — some people were supportive of the guidance, noting that Part 2 helps to improve understanding of planning. One response noted that it is acceptable as a framework however there is a total lack of any feeling that it should be followed, adding concern over the use of "should" and "encourage" throughout the guidance. This usage has been reviewed, and follows the "must, should, could" hierarchy as noted at the beginning of all documents in the Design Guide SPD suite.

Is the guidance provided clear in how it supports homeowners, developers, landowners and decision makers? — one respondent agreed that the guidance was clear, however another again raised concerns regarding a lack of traditional architecture being addressed. As previously, no changes were made to the guidance.

Does the guidance identify and address the key development challenges and opportunities in the borough? — the same issue regarding traditional architecture was raised here, and as previously, no changes were made to the guidance.

Are there any other important issues that you think have been missed? — one response noted that nothing had been said about a uniform approach to the materials used for pavements and roads across the borough. This was deemed overly prescriptive to include in design guidance, as developments must respond to their local context and a blanket approach across the borough would not be considered appropriate. Another response suggested that surface water drainage is covered well but wondered if it would be worth highlighting the importance of making sure there are no misconnections leading to foul water directly reaching watercourses. This was raised by another representation and has been addressed in the relevant section of the Building Alterations and Extensions guidance. One person followed up on their earlier comment regarding the protection of existing bird nest sites, which has also been addressed in the Building Alterations and Extensions guidance.

Please share any comments about how easy the document is to use and understand — one response noted that the guidance is fairly easy to use although the landscape layout, when viewed from a home screen, meant scrolling across to see the whole page. This has been considered, however no changes have been made to the layout and orientation as the document follows the same layout as the Design Guide SPD Part 1 – Design Principles, and it is not considered appropriate to deviate from this at this stage.