Greater London Authority Bill

I had been planning to make my remarks on the planning provisions in the Bill on the next group of amendments until the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, addressed her remarks to this group. I will not burden the Committee with the same remarks twice. I declare an interest in that I managed to serve 24 years on a London borough council without ever sitting on a planning committee, and I approach planning issues with that degree of detail. This section of the Bill and this group of amendments get to the heart of what having a strategic authority in London is all about. The very principle of arguing for the creation of a London-wide elected strategic authority in the run-up to 2000 was to enable some of those big strategic development issues that face the capital city to be addressed, and addressed decisively and effectively. It follows that the Mayor must have strategic powers which enable whoever the office-holder is to ensure that whatever the vision that that Mayor brings to the capital city, it can be taken forward. It has always seemed anomalous that the Mayor had the power to direct refusal for strategic planning applications but not approval. I can understand the concerns that planning decisions are effectively taken by one person, although when matters are appealed to the Secretary of State, essentially the same thing happens. I can understand the concerns that this would effectively create a situation in which one person would have the final say on a proposal. But the essential principle is that the Mayor should be able to set a strategic direction for the capital. That is where this part of the Bill is so important. I recall my time on a London borough council, when there were plenty of instances where the local authority had to make decisions that, in the interests of the borough, meant that some immediate local concerns had to be overridden. The analogy is circumstances when a local borough planning committee said that matters could not be determined when the local ward councillors objected. That demonstrates why there should be certain circumstances regarding matters of strategic importance whereby the Mayor of London should have power to direct approval to the London boroughs. This debate about what constitutes ““strategic”” as regards the amendments is important, and there has been an enormous amount of discussion with London Councils, individual London local authorities, the Mayor’s office and other interested parties as to how that should be achieved. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, mentioned that. There will be developments to which there is local opposition, but in the greater interest of London as a whole, it will be important that they go ahead. It is essential that the Mayor should have the power to determine those applications.