Housing and Regeneration Bill

I do not think that anybody would envisage that the Homes and Communities Agency should set up the design review panels, but we trust that there will be an extension of the design review facility universally across the country. The department and CABE are thinking about how to extend design review beyond the regions to become available to planning authorities in major cities and perhaps at county level, so it would be there and we would not be charging the HCA with that responsibility. The need to ensure that we get better quality proposals has been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in his anecdote about the 50 different design proposals in his part of London, none of them any good. That is borne out by CABE’s Housing Audit which reported that no less than 29 per cent of housing developments were so bad that they should never have received planning permission. We are not getting good enough design as it is. We have clearly got to find a solution. Even if the amendments that I have tabled are not perfect, I was encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is, as always, at the sharp end as a member of a local planning committee feels that the requirement on planning committees that they should promote good design and the resource made available to them by, for example, design review are beneficial and help him in his work. We would be going with the grain. The Minister was, as always, generous, positive and constructive. I appreciate the tone of her response. I am glad that she is going to think hard about the role for CABE because the interaction between CABE and the HCA, even if it is not expressed in the Bill, is going to be important in practical terms. That is part of addressing the question of how we are to impart more pervasively the appropriate abilities and skills within the HCA. CABE has been recommending post-occupancy analysis, so I am sure that a conversation between the Minister, her advisers and CABE would cast further light on what that might be about. Are the amendments in this group necessary? I take the view that exhortation has not worked historically and is unlikely to work in the present circumstances, given the pressures to cut corners, make haste and economise. I also think that while planning policy statements have legislative force, they are insufficiently strong instruments to achieve what we need. That is why I have suggested that we should use this legislation to develop procedures that would help to ensure that the whole enormous process tended to produce better results than it otherwise would. My noble friend mentioned that she was worried that what I was proposing might lead to innovation for the sake of it—endless innovation. I am not so much interested in innovation, although of course talented people and creative professions will always be innovatory. I would be at least as happy to see traditional architecture, where that was what people wanted for their own homes. We are not talking about whether architecture is contemporary, cutting edge, innovative, or all those code words to denote modernism; we are talking about design quality. Whatever the style chosen in which to build, we should be designing and building well. That is my concern. The agency and social housing providers should, through these requirements, continue to learn and to do things better. If my noble friend wants time to think, I know she will do so in a constructive spirit. If I or any other Members of the Committee can assist her in the process of thinking, I am sure she will welcome that. I shall withdraw what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, called the ““amulet amendment””—but I shall not throw away my amulet. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]