'In the principal Act after section 54A (status of development plans) there is inserted the following new section—

''Design and masterplans

54B. In determining any application for planning permission for development regard is to be had to any design or masterplan expressed as part of any existing permission for development on the application site.'.'.—[Sir Sydney Chapman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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.

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:

''Prescott plans flatpack homes to beat shortage''.

The article says that the Deputy Prime Minister

''has instructed English Partnerships, the regeneration agency, to tender for hundreds of new pod-like homes in 'millennium communities' as part of the drive for greener buildings and eco-friendly construction in Britain.''

It goes on to say:

''The units are a world away from the 1940s aluminium-framed prefab huts and also have new names, including OSM (off-site manufactured house) and even M-ouse (from mobile house).

Mr. Prescott has become hooked on the dwellings after visiting a number of house-builders''.

It continues:

''Mr. Prescott is so impressed by the designs and high quality of materials he sees no reason why the buildings should be seen in the same way as postwar temporary huts.''

There is a real issue, and it is design. Nobody could want more than for a much larger number of houses to be built than we have now. However, it is no good building houses for the sake of it and finding that in 20 years they have become tomorrow's slums. That is what happened in the case of post-war technology, with pre-cast reinforced concrete houses and so on.

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.

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.

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.

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.