Greater London Authority Bill

This has been an important debate on an important set of issues. I entirely share the intention behind many of these amendments. We are all agreed that there must be openness and transparency in the way that the Mayor makes decisions on planning applications. While I cannot accept all these amendments, I hope that I can demonstrate that there is not a large gap between us. I agree that it is crucial that the manner in which the Mayor makes decisions on planning applications is robust and transparent and is seen to be so by the public. It is good for him, it is good for the process and it is certainly good for London. That is the case, not least so that the Mayor, as a democratically elected decision maker, can be held accountable for his decisions. I turn first therefore to subsections (1) and (2) of Amendment No. 96. They would require the Mayor to exercise his powers to direct refusal, or to determine planning applications, in public meetings. While, as I have said, openness and transparency are important, the manner in which decisions are made is equally important because who is making the decision makes a difference. These decisions will be made by a single person rather than a committee, as is the case with the local planning authority. That is were some elements of the provision become surreal because a single decision-maker making a decision may simply sit in silence reading the papers and reports and considering the issues. There will not be a debate, other than perhaps an internal one, such as that which takes place in planning committees. To put it simply, there is nothing for an audience to see. That is why we consider that it would be wholly artificial to require the Mayor to take his or her decisions in public. However, we share common ground on some aspects of the amendment. We have previously agreed that any meetings at which the Mayor hears from the applicant, the relevant borough or other parties will be open to the public. The amendment also seeks to apply to the Mayor the provisions of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 on openness and access to information that apply to local planning authority decision-making. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly said, I did say on Second Reading that we are committed to applying the relevant principles of the 1972 Act, and will do so through the Mayor of London order. I cannot give the precise details at the moment, as they are currently being drafted, but I will be in a position to say more on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, asked what constitutes a hearing. When we talk about hearings, we do not mean court hearings or planning inquiries; we are saying simply that the Mayor must hear the representations from the applicants, the local authorities, and so on, which he chooses to allow. They do not imply cross-examination. Amendment No. 94 proposes a list of individuals and organisations, to be set out in the Bill, which must be given an opportunity to be heard by the Mayor before he determines a planning application. Again, there is no substantive difference between us on the principle of the amendment, which I hope assures my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours; we differ on how best to achieve this. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, spoke about delays in procedure and the need to be flexible. Let me be clear that we think it more appropriate to set out any detail in this area in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill. In doing so, noble Lords might recognise that we have gone further than the requirements that we place on local planning authorities, which are not required to hear representations from parties at planning committee meetings. We also agree that it is necessary to be clear about who could be involved in decisions on applications decided by the Mayor. However, other than setting some basic minima, which might include hearing from the applicant and the relevant London borough, should they so wish, we do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to dictate to the Mayor lists of people from whom he must hear. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, have already given us various candidates to be added to those lists. We must remember that the Mayor is not some unelected quango; he is directly elected and directly accountable for his own actions. He will therefore be well aware of the high level of scrutiny given to his exercise of his powers. It is not in his interests to follow secretive practices. Subject to setting the basic minima, it is right that the issue should be left to him. However, to ensure that there is clarity, we will require the Mayor to publish a document setting out those persons whom he will permit to appear before him and to be heard, and we have provided for this in Article 10 of the draft Mayor of London order. I suspect that there will be agreement in the Committee on this, which is why, in common with our proposal, the amendment provides discretion for the Mayor to choose to allow other parties to speak as he thinks is relevant and necessary. For the same reasons, we do not think that it is necessary to set out detailed requirements for how the Mayor will exercise his powers through a code of conduct, as sought by Amendment No. 102. However, under Article 10 of the draft mayoral order, we require the Mayor to prepare a document setting out the procedures to be followed for considering oral representations. We also propose to require the Mayor to give at least 14 days’ notice of any hearing and to publish agendas and relevant reports and other documents at least seven days ahead of that meeting. In addition, we will publish a revision of Circular 1/2000, which deals with strategic planning in London and which will give clear guidance that reinforces many of the messages that I have set out today and previously. These are sensible safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the general point about potential conflicts of interest, where there is some difference between parties. We do not expect a mayor who has a conflict of interest, or who has expressed his public support or, indeed, opposition for an application, to decide that application. That is the bottom line and fundamental to the clear principle of natural justice, which underpins the law of planning. However, I will read carefully what she said. In any case, many technical questions were raised.