New Clause 48 - Design and masterplans
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
3:45 pm
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
Let me, as I suspect the Opposition parties anticipated, provide the Committee with the usual technical, quasi-legalistic response to the new clause, which boils down to saying ''No, we cannot accept it''. Then I shall tell hon. Members what is in the Government's heart. As the Committee is aware, under the current system, existing planning decisions are based on the land-use merits of each proposal. When a further application is submitted for the same site, decision makers must consider each case afresh. However, the planning authority is already able to consider any relevant planning history of the land, including any previous permission, if it wishes—to that extent the new clause is not required.
Before I speak about design, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Cotswold on the issue of off-site manufacture. We are unlikely to rush in to the large-scale application of modern methods of manufacture. Building is a traditional industry, as he knows, and progress is slow. However, various aspects of it are changing—he mentioned the use of pods for bathrooms that are manufactured in far-away places. There is a place across the river, Salamanca street, off the Albert embankment, where I have observed perfect bathroom pods being slipped into a block of flats. They are manufactured in Kilmarnock, and they are exquisite.
The technology for modern methods of manufacture is proven elsewhere. It is extensively used both on the continent of Europe and in north America. It is safe and cost-effective in many respects and it offers a very high quality of design. The Government are most enthusiastic about it, particularly against the backdrop of the skills shortages in not only the construction industry but the whole development industry. Sir John Egan is currently inquiring into the issue in order to encourage the most extensive use possible of modern methods of manufacture.
I come on to the new clause, which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I welcome the commitment implicit in it, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks about good urban design. We are very sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause. The Government are committed to higher-quality design—it is absolutely essential to the provision of inclusive and sustainable communities and underpins much of what is set out in the communities plan. Government planning policies have, for some time, made it clear that, when submitting planning proposals, applicants should be able to demonstrate how they have taken account of the need for good design. PPG1, on general policy and principles, underlines that
''good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere''.
The policy is supported by good practice guidance, ''By Design'', and planning authorities are encouraged to reject poor design. Indeed, on this, the day of the better building summit, let me make it absolutely clear that the Government would be more than content if more authorities rejected applications on the basis of poor design. That would send out a powerful message. The Government's commitment to good design will be restated in the promised update of PPG1.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The judgment about what constitutes good design is bound to be subjective at one level, but we all know what unimaginative, inhumane and soulless developments were inflicted on our communities in past decades.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that people are now far more open to good design, that they are willing to pay for it and that they want to see it. I might add that it has great benefits for developers, too. With those assurances—that the Government are not merely committed, but passionately concerned to promote the principles of good design in development—I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.