| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment which has my name attached to it.
The point that I wish to emphasise is that, if we are serious about sustainability, then good design is part of that. Good design is functional, and therefore fulfils its purpose. Good design uses environmentally friendly materials. All this leads to homes, buildings and other infrastructures which stand the test of time and are much more sustainable in the widest sense. That is why I support the noble Lords, Lord Rogers
and Lord Lucas, in their attempt to attach this to the Bill. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment too. I suspect that I support the second amendment more than the first, but I wait to hear what the Minister says.
Design is a crucial part of making something out of sustainable development which the rest of us can appreciate. Getting a thing right in terms of our enjoyment and use of an urban space, in particular, is very much a matter of good design.
Design is not curlicues on doorknobs, it is the way the whole space works, the way in which people interact with it, the way that the new bit of the city interacts with the old. It is putting effort into getting things right for the long term, rather than hoping that they will work out for themselves. It is doing what we did not do in Docklands, though that has worked out well in the end. It could have come better and faster if we had put a bit of effort into planning and designing the area properly. It still might be a better place to live than it is now.
This is an important part of producing sustainability. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, has said, the Minister has gone a long way in bringing design into the Bill. This last bit is necessary.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, my views on sustainable development have been expressed in earlier stages of the Bill, so I shall not go into them.
I support this group of amendments. I particularly support Amendment No. 23, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, combines the important concept of good quality design in this strange concept of sustainable development.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if it were up to me, I would certainly prefer Amendment No. 23 to Amendment No. 22. In some ways, it is not up to me; it is almost not up to the Government. Earlier I gave the commitment that, one way or another, I would talk to the planning Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister about the need to include the word "design" in the Bill, but our problem has always been to find a suitable location for it. In some ways, that is the real difficulty. In instructing parliamentary counsel, we have taxed to the limit efforts to find the right place to insert the word without causing untoward problems. That has been our difficulty.
I have said throughout that the clause on sustainable development was extremely difficult. The previous amendment is about as far as we dare go in touching that clause. As the House knows, I will move a government amendment to include the word "design" on the face of the Bill. Having said that, I would be more than happy, if it were up to me, to include Amendment No. 23. I have been unable to do that. I have tried but failed in that sense simply because I have had to accept the advice that we muck around more with Clause 39 at our peril later. I do not want to
have on the statute book something that looked okay as a quick fix; I would much rather have the amendment that the Government will bring forward to Clause 43. It gets the thrust of what we want but does not cause problems later. That is the advice that I have received.We fully agree that, without proper attention to design, we will not deliver sustainable development. We remain of the view that the case for referring specifically to design in this clause gives us such difficulty that we cannot accept it. We want to ensure that both design and access are established as fundamental planning issues. The key is a strong planning policy statement 1, which makes clear that good design and consideration of access issues are crucial to the delivery of sustainable development. They are not separate from it; yet they recognise the importance of sound design and access policies in local development frameworks.
To further underpin that, we will require in the secondary legislation that is to be made under Part 2 of the Bill that local authorities must include design and access within their portfolio of local development documents. That reinforces the strong statements on both areas already made in the consultation draft of planning policy statement 1. We will also work with the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment, on the coverage of design issues in planning policy statement 1, and with the Disability Rights Commission and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, on the coverage of access issues. We consider that the policy is already clear and strong, but we are more than willing to consider ways of further improving it.
I know from looking at the document that it mentions design and access throughout in a number of different contexts. We may need to consider whether what we mean in each different context is clear enough for policymakers, but we are more than ready to listen. That approach will mean that design and access issues are properly considered in the plan-making process and will encourage local planning authorities to take them seriously. This House is sending to planning authorities a powerful message, with this short debate and the later one on the amendments concerned, that Parliament is taking the issue extremely seriously and we expect to see it put into practice.
Lord Rogers of Riverside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. I can understand the Government's reluctance to reopen Clause 39. It is very delicately worded and has been the subject of much discussion in your Lordships' House. However, we may be missing an important opportunity to make the vital connection between sustainable development and design quality absolutely clear on the face of the Bill. Today we may have given less confidential local planning authorities an important tool in order to reject applications on design grounds.
I can see, however, that the Government can offer no further ground. I do not want to go against my Government. With a little reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 23:
- Page 21, line 27, at end insert "with an emphasis on high quality design"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister's heart is in the right place, but not yet his pen. I would like to give him another opportunity to have a go at writing this into the Bill. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 87.
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Biffen, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Chorley, L.
Cobbold, L.
Dholakia, L.
Falkland, V.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fowler, L.
Greaves, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Laird, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Lucas, L. [Teller]
McNally, L.
Maddock, B. [Teller]
Northover, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Quinton, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
Sandberg, L.
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tope, L.
Tugendhat, L.
Walmsley, B.
Weatherill, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bragg, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Hayman, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Judd, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Mishcon, L.
Mitchell, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Slim, V.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Warner, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.25 p.m.
Clause 40 [Local development orders]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page