Greater London Authority Bill

I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on getting her head around the order extremely rapidly and for refraining from using any footballing metaphor, which was a relief to me at least. I also join her in wishing the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) a speedy recovery. I imagine that he, of all people, would suffer from not having his voice. He certainly ensured that debates in Committee were always amiable and cheery, and we have had a good debate today too. Hon. Members have raised a series of issues and tabled a series of amendments on the planning measures that are part of the GLA Bill. In the limited time that remains, I will try to address as many of those as possible. I will begin by addressing some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and then deal with some of the points made about specific amendments by Opposition Members. The approach set out in the draft order does not use size as the only test of strategic importance. It does set thresholds, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is right that the thresholds are modelled around those for the negative powers. A policy test is also set out in paragraph 8 of the order to ensure that the development to which the application relates must be of such a nature or scale that there would be a significant impact on the implementation of the London plan. The thresholds were modelled around the negative criteria because many of the stakeholders had asked for some simplicity and clarity in the operation of the process. In particular, London First, which represents major business development in the capital, argued for the same thresholds to apply for the negative and positive criteria, to ensure some simplicity and clarity for people making applications. We are not talking about increases in the number of cases that need to be referred to the Mayor, except on issues such as waste. We are, however, talking about giving the Mayor a positive power, not simply an anti-development power. As for how the current criteria operate, until September last year about 300—0.3 per cent.—of the 90,000 applications were referred to the Mayor, and he used his power of direction in about three or 0.003 per cent. of those applications. Obviously, those are the largest of the applications, because that is exactly the specification in relation to strategic importance. We expect the Mayor to be similarly sparing in the use of the positive power, which is why we have set out proposals in the order. There are areas in which the negative criteria, applied in the same way as the positive criteria, do not work. That has been raised in discussions and consultation with stakeholders on the order, and particularly in relation to paragraph 3, I think, of the schedule. I have already asked officials to look again at those matters, because, otherwise, there is a risk that there will be perverse incentives for developers and decision making in that area. We need to recognise the difference between the way in which the thresholds and policy tests work. We are currently consulting on that, and we will consult formally on the final version of the order. We thought that it was important, however, to debate the order as part of the Bill. In Committee, I said that there are arguments in favour of a geographic test, which the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich raised, and which is specified in some of the amendments now being considered. We consulted at an earlier stage on a possible geographic test. Again, London First was among those who argued that it would lead to a lack of clarity and greater complexity. For that reason, it was not appropriate to include it in the draft order, but we will continue to listen to views on that in the consultation, as, clearly, there are some arguments in favour of such a test. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 deal with issues relating to planning obligations. They would remove the Mayor’s ability to negotiate and agree planning obligations relating to the planning applications that he is responsible for deciding. That would be unworkable in practice. Planning obligations play an important role in planning applications, and can be about either mitigating the adverse impact of development or the importance of affordable housing as part of that development. It is unworkable to expect the Mayor to take decisions on a planning application but not to be engaged in the planning obligations that make those applications possible. Similar arguments apply to enforcement and the need to be able to ensure that the decisions that are taken are properly enforced. It would of course be far more sensible in practice for the boroughs to take the lead on those enforcement decisions, but it is not right to rule out the possibility of the Mayor also being able to take enforcement action where necessary. Planning guidance circular 05/2005 governs planning obligations and is clear that the Mayor cannot simply take section 106 moneys for his own schemes and ignore local issues. There is already clear guidance to ensure that where the boroughs have issues that section 106 needs to fund, that must happen, to ensure that the application can go ahead and that infrastructure considerations are properly taken into account. New clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 seek to apply the provisions of part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 to the Mayor and to address the need for transparency and a proper process. I have a lot of sympathy for those new clauses, which raise some important issues. As part of the order, we have set out some requirements relating to transparency and process. However, were we to redraft the 1972 Act now, I am not sure that there would be the same appetite for setting out those requirements in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation. Many of those issues are dealt with far better through secondary legislation. I am happy to look again at what should be in primary legislation rather in than secondary legislation, but my presumption is that such procedural issues are best dealt with through secondary legislation. However, we are sympathetic to the idea of ensuring that the representations from local authorities and others should be heard in public meetings, rather than ensuring simply that they take place. We covered that point in Committee, although we shall certainly consider it further. However, there are advantages to ensuring that such issues are covered through secondary legislation as far as possible, in order to have the flexibility to respond to new problems that arise. We have ensured in the order that the Mayor should give at least 14 days notice of any hearing, and publish agendas and relevant reports at least seven days ahead of the meeting, which goes further than the proposals in new clause 10. On amendment No. 3, there is a need to place a time limit on the Mayor’s decision. However, our proposal is that the Mayor should decide within 14 days of being notified of the borough’s proposed decision, not within 21 days of being notified of the application. Amendment No. 3 would have a perverse effect, which is not supported by the boroughs, the Mayor or London First, in that it would involve the Mayor taking a decision much earlier, and potentially even taking over more applications than he would need to. London Councils were strongly against that approach in its representations to us, which is why we have not taken it forward. Amendment Nos. 18 and 31 set out alternative definitions of ““strategic importance””. I have dealt with the geographic test and said that we are happy to consider that further. We also think that there are some benefits to the wording in those amendments, in ensuring that there are ““sound planning reasons”” for so acting. A series of respondents have put that proposal forward, which might be a helpful addition to the order. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) raised the specific circumstances that the City of London faces, which we recognise. It has a much higher proportion of commercial developments as opposed to residential developments, and faces particular circumstances, given its role in the economy. We have therefore already set higher thresholds for the City of London, and we are prepared to consider the issue further as part of the consultation. Members raised a range of issues and tabled various amendments in this group; however, I am running out of time. The debate on the order is the appropriate place to discuss this level of detail. We should have the opportunity to review the performance of this provision, and we will debate it further. However, we do not think it right to put all such measures into primary legislation and to try, in effect, to remove the Mayor from all consideration of housing matters. There are important strategic housing issues across London— It being Nine o’clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [12 December 2006]. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The House proceeded to a Division.