| Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
|
|
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. I congratulate him on the way in which he has moved the new clause. It is particularly apposite on a day in which we have seen two articles in the press, one in The Guardian and one in The Times. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost the one from The Guardian on my way here, but I have a copy of the one from The Times. It is headed:
The article says that the Deputy Prime Minister
Mr. Prescott has become hooked on the dwellings after visiting a number of house-builders''.
Column Number: 263 Although some such technologies are proven, others are not. We would be ill advised to rush wholesale to unproven technologies. I have seen some of the new technologies working well. That is the case with pre-fitted bathrooms, for example—they are almost manufactured in one, with tiles, baths, and showers—which go into the house almost as one unit. That sort of thing can be successful. Imitation slates sold by the square metre rather than as individual slates to reduce building costs can work well. I have some worries about outside construction panels that are put on a concrete slab and bolted together. We need to consider such things very carefully.Particularly at this dark time when the Government have set up a commission for design, we need to consider the matter carefully and learn from the lessons of the past if we are not to make tomorrow's slums out of today's poorly designed houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has made a good point. Design should be one of the critical matters that should be considered at the planning application stage. If the Government cannot accept the new clause, I hope that they will indicate that design should be given a much greater priority in the planning process. Keith Hill: 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.
Column Number: 264 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
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.
4 pmThe 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. Sir Sydney Chapman: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his views. I shall, of course, seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the new clause. However, I hope that he will allow me to express a scintilla of disappointment first. The new clause would not give local planning authorities a blanket authority to turn down applications on the grounds of design. It would be strictly confined to previously submitted designs that might have had a great influence on the committee or council that determined the application—perhaps an exciting project that would be welcomed in the area—but for which inferior designs have subsequently been substituted. The new clause would have given the Government the opportunity to put a marker down to encourage and persuade people to say that the Government were serious about good design in buildings—and in the relationships between buildings.
Column Number: 265 I express a slight disappointment, but I do not want to detain the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 21 October 2003 |
