Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 94: 94: Clause 31, page 36, line 11, at end insert— ““(7A) The following persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard by the Mayor of London before he determines an application by virtue of section 2A or this section— (a) the applicant; (b) the local planning authority who received the application; (c) the member of the Assembly whose constituency covers the land subject to the application; (d) no fewer than one councillor of a London borough or the Common Council whose ward covers the land subject to the application; (e) no fewer than one representative of local, amenity or environmental interests as the Mayor of London considers appropriate; (f) Transport for London; (g) any other person, including public bodies or statutory undertakers, as the Mayor of London considers appropriate.”” The noble Baroness said: While it is plain that we are not great believers in the Mayor playing this strategic role in planning, if it is to happen, he has got to know how to play it properly and in the same way as a local authority would have to; that is, in the open and at a hearing which can be attended by the public, thus providing the opportunity for representations to be made by all those required to come before him. In these amendments, we seek to give the planning process so far as the Mayor is concerned greater transparency so as to foster confidence among the public in mayoral decision-making. Amendment No. 94 would enshrine the right of interested parties to a hearing by the Mayor before he makes a decision. The list includes in particular the applicant and the local authority, but also makes provision for local representatives at Assembly and council level, as well as TfL and resident representatives with strong views about the application. It is important that there is both a fair hearing and the perception of a fair hearing. It is hard to argue that it should not be an explicit right of the applicant and the local authority receiving the application to present their side of the story to the Mayor in public. Perhaps the Government may be tempted to do so for logistical reasons, but if the Mayor deems that a planning application is important enough for him to determine, it must be the case that that determination should be based on a proper evaluation of all the circumstances. The purpose of Amendment No. 96 is to protect the openness of planning meetings themselves. I refer to planning meetings because under these amendments, and I believe even under the draft order, the Mayor will have to hold open hearings in such a way that it is apparent to applicants, local authorities and members of the public that he is considering his decision in public. The amendment follows the principle behind an amendment put forward by my honourable friends in another place, but it fleshes out the detail in response to the debates that took place several months ago. At Second Reading, the Minister promised that the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 on access to information would be applied, but the present draft of the Mayor of London order does not actually go that far. This amendment would add the very important obligation that meetings should be held in public. As I said, transparency in decision-making is essential. It simply must be a statutory requirement that the public have the right to a hearing, as well as for the procedure to be open. That is why we believe that the hearings, or meetings—whatever we want to call them—should be held in public, and further that the Mayor should be compelled to give public justification for his final decision. Amendment No. 102 proposes a code of conduct for the Mayor to follow when exercising any of his planning functions. It, too, is motivated by the principles of transparency, scrutiny and consistency of decision-making. These are well known in local authorities and follow a procedure that is well understood. Public and residents have access to all that decision-making, so it is essential that applications for which the Mayor is responsible are similarly enshrined in legislation. I beg to move.