The senior minister said plans for a pre-application 'Placemaking Matrix', unveiled by the Policy Exchange think-tank, could be an 'indispensable resource' and unlock new housing supply.
Inspired by other ratings systems such as Ofsted or the Energy Performance Certificate, the new matrix would be known as a PAX score and would rate new development proposals as Outstanding, Good, Average or Poor.
According to the proposal, outlined in the Better Places report by architect and critic Ike Ijeh, housing schemes could be ranked against a set of more than 270 criteria. A score of more than 70 per cent would be required for a scheme to achieve an Outstanding rating.
Under the proposals, this score would be calculated before planning submission by three 'PAX assessors', one of which would be either a local authority officer (though not one assigned as planning officer for the project), urban designer or architect.
In addition to this professional assessor, the paper suggests appointing two more PAX Assessors, who could be anyone from a member of the project team, including a client consultant, to a local resident or member of the public.
The assessors will compile the rating and submit the score with the planning submission, allowing local authorities to use it to assess developers' proposals.
The Policy Exchange paper comes as the UK grapples with sluggish building rates and ongoing debate over the quality of new-build homes.
The matrix would 'elevate' placemaking to a paramount material consideration during the planning process, the report argued, in contrast with the current system, which relies on planners effectively trusting developers will tackle placemaking after plans are approved.
Gove said: 'The matrix has been developed at a time when the relevance of placemaking to the political and public debate on housing could not be more acute.
'Good placemaking ensures longevity. It is environmentally wasteful to construct and then demolish houses every few decades because sustainability and quality were not built-in from the beginning. Making sure that our next generation of residential infrastructure is fit for purpose and is built to last is not a political choice; it is a social responsibility.'
The paper included three case studies assessed by Ijeh to illustrate how the matrix could be used to score developments' placemaking.
London's new multibillion Nine Elms district in the capital's south-west was given an overall placemaking rating of 'Poor'. The development scored high on transport connections, and the addition of a new tube station described as a 'phenomenal example' of public gain from private enterprise.
However, Nine Elms' buildings only scored 3 per cent (of an available 8.3 per cent). The mega-development was criticised for its 'preponderance of high-rises' and buildings which 'gleefully display a shocking array of the architectural aberrations housing does best to avoid'.
Nine Elms failed to impress across other sections, too, scoring low on affordability, lack of play space, and on its 'sense of place', due to its 'insipid high-rise architecture' and 'lack of visual unity'.
Another development used as a case study was the Accordia development in south Cambridge, where 378 new homes were completed in 2011. This development was rated 'Outstanding' and praised as an 'accomplished example of the power of architecture', which 'exudes an aura of familial intimacy'.
RIBA Stirling Prize 2008 winner: Accordia by Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, Alison Brooks Architects and Maccreanor Lavington
The third case study, Lochgelly in Fife, was rated 'Good'.
The report notes: 'It is very important that the Matrix goes to great lengths to avoid value judgements. In bluntest terms, it does not exist to decide whether stone is better than glass or porticoes are preferable to canopies or cobblestones are more desirable than paving slabs.
'Instead, it seeks to prescribe an objective and dispassionate means of quality assessment that focuses specifically on outcomes, rather than processes or preference.'
Source; Architects Journal