Skip to main content

PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE 7

EDM (Early Day Motion) 160A1: tabled on 02 December 2003

Tabled in the 2003-04 session.

This motion has been signed by 7 Members. It is an amendment to an existing motion.

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

This is an amendment to an existing motion

This motion was originally tabled by Alan Howarth on 27 November 2003. This is amendment number 1.

View details of the original motion

Suggested amendment

Line 1, delete from 'Home' to end and insert 'congratulates the Government on the proposal to abolish the exceptions rule in PPG 7, which allowed new houses in the countryside, allegedly of the highest quality; believes that such houses should go on to brownfield sites; further believes; if the countryside is to be preserved by not building ordinary houses; it is even more important it should not be polluted with big houses for the arrogant, vulgar, rich and that architects of distinction ought to be able to design prestigious houses on brownfield sites and to high density.

Original motion text

That this House calls on the Government to retain within the forthcoming revised countryside planning guidance, PPG7, the provision which allows, exceptionally, that permission may be granted for an isolated new house in the countryside, provided that it is of the highest quality, in terms of its architecture and landscape design; proposes that planning permission in such cases should be subject to approval by the Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment; considers that rural as well as urban areas should be able to have the benefit of outstanding contemporary architecture; recognises that a number of today's finest architects are British, with their practices based in Britain, recalls that previous generations have had the confidence to commission the best architects to design houses that are now among the glories of our heritage and believes that we should have similar confidence in our own time; notes that there is no incompatability between the encouragement of architecturally outstanding individual houses and the provision of affordable housing in rural areas; and further notes the benefit to the rural economy of the creation of fine country houses, in particular in terms of jobs, tourism, and the perpetuation of craft skills and woodland management.

The first 6 Members who have signed to support the motion are the sponsors. The primary sponsor is generally the person who tabled the motion and has responsibility for it. The date shown is when the Member signed the motion.

In addition to the sponsors, the following Members have signed to support the motion.

There are no withdrawn signatures for this amendment.