I am not at all surprised by the Minister’s response. It demonstrates the gulf between us over what the Mayor should be able to do with regard to overriding local boroughs, particularly in the controversial area of planning, an area about which most boroughs can feel very wound-up, to put it that way.
I hear what the Minister says. I am very conscious that we will probably break quite soon for a Statement in the House, but I shall just draw attention again to what I said when I spoke to Amendment No. 101. Amendment No. 100 would amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and all the documents and development plans that come out of it will gradually be phased out, although not very quickly. As I said earlier in our proceedings, I understand that only two local development frameworks have been fulfilled within the timescale. Many, many more will dance up the line at some stage, but the unitary development plans will be in place for a very considerable time. There is an existing duty for documents to have regard to the strategy, which seems merely to conform to my amendment.
We are not going to agree about this, and I shall withdraw the amendment today, although I do not promise not to return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hanham
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Greater London Authority Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c199GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:45:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395602
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395602
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395602