Greater London Authority Bill

I intend to address the topic of the specific threshold for mayoral intervention in planning powers. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will recall, I raised that issue on Second Reading. I expressed support, in principle, for the Mayor being able to direct that approval be given in appropriate cases, in which the development is of strategic significance, and is in conformity with the London plan. I argued that it was slightly anomalous for the Mayor to have a negative power to refuse proposals that were not in conformity with the London plan, but to be unable to require approval of a scheme that was in conformity with the London plan. I argued the case for such a power, but I also expressed real concern about the thresholds that would be used to determine whether the Mayor would have that intervention power. I did so primarily from fear of what I described as mission creep—that is, the potential for such powers to be used far more extensively than might originally have been envisaged, in order to ensure the integrity of the London plan. However, I argued that we should ensure that the Mayor is able to direct, in appropriate cases, that an authority should not reject a strategically significant development that is in conformity with the London plan. The worry about mission creep led me to say that I would want to look closely at the statutory instrument that would define the concept of ““strategic””, and my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to make that order available by the time that the Bill reached Committee. It was delayed a little, but the draft order is now available, and we have had sight of it, but I am far from reassured; in fact, my concerns have been greatly heightened. I have two major concerns. The first is that I believe that the statutory instrument confuses size with ““strategic””. There is an assumption that anything above a certain size threshold is automatically strategic. Having looked at those size thresholds, it is perfectly clear to me that they would embrace a number of development sites in my constituency—and therefore sites in other parts of London—that are unquestionably of local, not strategic, significance. There has been a serious failure to consider what represents a ““strategic”” development. In my view, ““strategic”” refers to a development that is of significance more widely than in the borough in which it is situated. Its impact must be felt more widely than in one borough, and it must be likely to have a significant impact on the whole of London.