Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 92: 92: Clause 31, page 34, line 43, at end insert ““other than for the purposes of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”” The noble Baroness said: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 97 to 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The group also refers to Clauses 32 to 35 standing part, making it particularly odd that we start with Amendment No. 92. It is a consequential amendment, if one can start with a consequence. It opens up the issue of Section 106 on planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Under Clause 32, Section 106 matters—planning obligations—become a matter for the Mayor if he takes over an application. My opposition to Clause 32 and the other clauses dealing with planning obligations follows in part from my opposition to Clause 31 and concerns about the order on issues with which the Mayor can concern himself, which we debatedyesterday. It also comes from my view that the value of Section 106 is to the local community, and not just in straight cash terms. A community saddled with a development which it may not particularly welcome will see benefits which should strictly be related directly to the development, but can usefully extend to the community by ensuring infrastructure. The nexus between the application, the local authority and the community is particularly important. The Mayor argues that the local authoritywill remain the lead authority and negotiate theSection 106 agreement. I notice that his briefingdid not suggest that Clauses 32 or 33(2) should be amended. The benefit of the obligation can fall tothe Greater London Authority. I am sure that the Minister can reassure us about money not going into some general pot. I do not think that it would, although there is a fear that that might be the case and the Mayor would grant a planning application, take the cash and use it for purposes unconnected with the particular development. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that. Local authorities working in co-operation have shown that they can do so on Section 106 as well as other matters with a cross-boundary application. The most notable example is on the applications for the Olympics and Paralympics Games sites. It is unnecessary for the Mayor to step in if the argument is that local authorities cannot work together and that they need somebody above them. I beg to move.