HL Deb 06 March 1990 vol 516 cc1162-4WA
Baroness Gardner of Parkes

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their policy in relation to the design of major development proposals.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)

The Government have advised local planning authorities, in Circular 22/80, confirmed by Circular 31/85, and in Planning Policy Guidance Note 1, that they should not seek to impose their tastes on developers simply because they believe them to be superior. Judgments about external design are essentially subjective, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has seen no evidence that a more interventionist approach by local authorities would result in improved standards overall. Indeed, there is a risk that attempts to compromise between differing aesthetic judgments may produce bland buildings which satisfy no one.

Accordingly, where they consider it essential to refuse planning permission or to impose conditions related to design, local planning authorities should ensure that the grounds for refusal or for conditions relate to relevant planning issues such as the density and bulk of the development and its compatibility with its surroundings. This may include, in sensitive areas, the use of materials appropriate to the locality. Such control of external appearance may be particularly important where development proposals affect National Parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, or the setting of important historic landmarks. Authorities should in general confine their concern to those aspects of design which are significant for the aesthetic quality of the area. Only exceptionally should they control design details, if the sensitive character of the area or the particular building justifies it. Alterations to buildings of special architectural or historic interest are controlled through listed building consent procedures, for similar reasons.

Although my right honourable friend has no plans to impose further measures of aesthetic control, we are deeply concerned to promote good design. Our concern relates particularly to the standard of planning applications made for major developments. My right honourable friend hopes that developers will bring forward schemes which will make a major contribution to the architectural fabric of the country in the long term.

Pursuit of the highest architectural standards should not be deflected by debate about style. We acknowledge that style is important, but dressing a building in different stylistic devices, whether classical, gothic, high tech or of the modern movement, is essentially a subordinate activity. We attach great importance to the more fundamental architectural values of good proportion and scale, and skill in the use of space and light, which distinguish good buildings of any period.

We do not believe that these qualities can be achieved by regulation, control or government edict. My right honourable friend cannot and would not want to try to impose his own views on design through individual planning appeals. So we must look to developers and designers to have greater regard for the impact of their buildings on the environment, now and in the future, and to aim always to achieve the highest possible standard.