New Clause 48 - Design and masterplans
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
3:30 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the second of the four new clauses that were to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. His constituency and mine have few similarities. Isle of Wight has 106,000 electors, and mine has more or less the English norm of about 75,000. His constituency covers about 150 square miles while mine covers less than a tenth of that. His constituency is surrounded by water while mine is landlocked, although in the previous Session I had the privilege of piloting the National Heritage Bill, which was about marine archaeology, in this House.
The new clause, which is inspired by the Town and Country Planning Association, also has the support of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I declare an interest as I am involved with the Town and Country Planning Association and have just retired from the Royal Institute of British Architects. The new clause aims to promote and ensure good design.
It may help the Committee to know that during the short time in which I practised as an architect, the firm with which I was associated were architects to a brewery. When I move on to another earth, all that the country will have will be a few of the pubs that I designed. It was only when I had to design pubs that I realised the importance of field research.
I shall save the Committee time by quoting heavily from the brief prepared by the Town and Country Planning Association, which succinctly and positively stated:
''This clause is prepared by the TCPA to address the problem of disregarding the original design or masterplan for a site once the principle of development has been agreed with initial planning permission. In these cases a good design can be replaced at a later stage of the planning process (at application for reserved matters or full planning permission) when an inferior scheme is put forward in the knowledge that the principle of development on the site has been agreed and that it is always difficult to reject a scheme in these circumstances solely on design factors.''
Indeed, to my knowledge—I do not believe that things have changed—a planning authority would find it very difficult to turn down an application purely on grounds of design, although I believe that they can do so in such beautiful places as the Cotswolds, where a brick building in village built entirely of stone would quite rightly not be permitted. In other parts of the country, however, I have rarely seen a planning authority successfully turn down an application for reasons of design.
In any case, I acknowledge that design is subjective. What one person finds beautiful, other people may find an eyesore. I shall try to stay within the rules of the proceedings, but the mediaeval clergy did not take kindly to Sir Christopher Wren's masterpiece. Incidentally, Christopher Wren and I have two things in common: we are both architects and Members of Parliament. The agreement has worked very well: Sir Christopher has promised to make no more speeches if I promise to design no more buildings.
My real point is that in some cases, the ability not to carry out the original outline design that excites the imagination and that is permitted could be substituted when the principle of a development and the land on which it would take place has been established, because the outline, or initial, planning permission quite properly gives rights to the applicant.
The TCPA goes on to say:
''In some cases this can be described as 'trophy architecture' where a high quality masterplanner or designer is used for the initial application only to see the original scheme replaced with one of much poorer quality later on.''
I accept that this breaks new ground, but I hope that the Minister will not decline to accept the new clause for that reason.
The TCPA continues:
''This new clause would for the first time give statutory recognition to design and masterplans and would introduce a duty to have regard to any such schemes which form part of an existing planning permission on an application site.''
Finally, it is my belief that the public are becoming more interested in, and demanding about, good architecture. In the early part of my career, both in politics and at the drawing board, there was a time when the good electors of my constituency decided that it was not appropriate to re-elect me. I had to go back to the drawing board, literally. In the post-war years, there was a great need to get rid of the slums, to replace the bombed buildings, and, with an exploding population, to provide more homes very quickly. Design was secondary to putting a roof over somebody's head.
Now, in one sense, we have a surplus of buildings. However, there is great demand for new buildings. Families are breaking up so more people are demanding smaller dwelling units rather than bigger ones. There is a great demographic and social change in our country. I think that people recognise the importance of good design, and they are prepared to pay for it. If the Government were to respond sympathetically to the new clause, they would be knocking at an open door. The people of our country would appreciate it.