Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 100: 100: After Clause 33, insert the following new Clause— ““Other amendments of TCPA 1990 (1) TCPA 1990 is amended as follows. (2) In section 12(3C) (preparation of unitary development plan) for ““be in general conformity with”” substitute ““have regard to””. (3) In section 13(1A) (public participation) for ““is in general conformity with”” substitute ““has regard to””. (4) In section 13(5A) for ““is not in general conformity with”” substitute ““does not have regard to””. (5) In section 15(2A) for ““are in general conformity with”” substitute ““have regard to””. (6) Omit section 21A (Greater London: conformity with spatial development strategy). (7) Omit section 26(2)(bb). (8) Omit section 74(1B) and (1C). (9) Omit section 322B (local inquiries in London’s special provision as to costs in certain cases).”” The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 101, and do so on the clear understanding that these twin amendments would intentionally dilute the obligation on the development plan documents to follow the Mayor’s overall strategy for the city. Amendment No. 100 would replace the words ““be in general conformity with”” the London Plan with, again, ““having regard to””. We have had other debates on this over the other strategies. I am sure that the Minister’s answer will be similar to those, but it is worth repeating it again. It is important, in going through the Bill, that each of these strategies should be carefully considered. Amendment No. 100 would alter the thrust of the relevant provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It would give the boroughs vital and highly desirable freedom to deviate from the London Plan where appropriate. It would retain the requirement to have regard to the overall strategy, which would therefore rightly remain a factor in development plans, but would ensure that there was no over-arching strategy which could override any special or regional considerations for the borough. While Amendment No. 100 relates to the old unitary development plans, the new clause in Amendment No. 101 would remove the obligation for new development plan documents under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to be in general conformity with the spatial development plan or London Plan. There is already an existing duty for these documents to have regard to the strategy under Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. This position, deemed appropriate by the Government only three years ago, is more suitable and flexible. I beg to move.