Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 78A: 78A: Clause 31, page 34, line 42, at end insert— ““(3A) An application which includes or comprises residential development shall not be an application of potential strategic importance by reason of the residential development proposed provided— (a) it accords with the development plan for the area in which it is situated, (b) no more than 500 houses, flats or houses and flats are proposed in the application or in any more substantial development on the same land or adjoining land of which the application forms part, (c) no building proposed is more than 30 metres high, or if adjacent to the river Thames, 25 metres high.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78B and 78C. I thank the Minister very much for the time she has given us on the draft Mayor of London order and for the discussions we have had. We have not agreed on all the aspects but it has been very helpful to have the opportunity to speak to her and the officials. I thank her for that courtesy. It is fortunate that we have the opportunity to debate the order today, as this part of the Bill brings us to the issue of planning. However, it is a shame that we cannot directly amend it. These amendments seek to set reasonable parameters within which the order could operate. The current definition of strategic importance is, and remains, incredibly wide. It is important that the clarification of intervention triggers is provided in the order. I welcome the further clarification on the order and the inclusion of terms that I suggested in Committee with Amendment No. 93, which has laid out a process. But it is important that commercial applications are considered by the Mayor only ifthey stand to affect other boroughs. The inclusion of the words ““sound planning reason”” is a further concession to Amendment No. 93. It was intendedin that instance to be taken in the context of theother two criteria. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure noble Lords that that is still the intention. It is clear that there could be much improvement on the definition of strategic importance. Amendment No. 78A provides a clear definition. If the Mayor determines a planning application to be of strategic importance, that is one of the triggers among others that will allow him to intervene. I applaud the Minister’s valiant efforts to persuade me in various meetings that the strategic importance test is not terribly important as it is one of a package of other tests that the Mayor must undertake. However, we part company on the Government’s decision to lower the threshold by which strategic importance is measured, from 500 housing units to 150. Such a lowering of the threshold threatens the independence of the boroughs, increased co-operation between boroughs and the freedom of the market. The order would allow even more central infiltration into local planning decisions. Efficiency in the planning system is a vital concern for all boroughs, not least those that have a high percentage of businesses that need to be confident in planning procedures if they are to invest. The Mayor, on average, is taking six months to make a determination on a planning application—and that is to refuse an application, which is the only power he currently has—as opposed to the six to eight weeks taken by the City of Westminster. The Minister tried to offer us reassurances in the shape of expected uptake figures. She estimates—I hope I am not putting words into her mouth—that the lower thresholds will result in only 40 extra applications a year going to the Mayor. I am afraid that we have heard very different figures which paint a picture of far greater influence. I will also be grateful if the Minister can reassure noble Lords that the Mayor will not be able to delegate the process of and decision-making on planning applications in any circumstances. That is my understanding of the current material in Clause 31 and new Clause 2B(7). It would be helpful if the Minister could reassure us that the Mayor himself must consider the applications. I am pleased to see that the Minister has given way on provisions for the City of London. I was, however, astonished to read in the notes accompanying the order that the Minister has used raising the threshold in the City as justification for lowering the threshold for the rest of London. Not only does that amount to an admission that the Mayor’s intervention will be on a much higher scale than before; I believe that it shows in which direction those applications are likely to go. While the City is unique in many senses, it is not the only area in London that needs special provision. Although the decision to raise the threshold is the right one, it is simply not the straight swap that the Minister has imagined, and it is wrong to raise the threshold in one area and use that as a reason to lower it in others. Amendment No. 78A provides that a residential development in accordance with the borough’s development plan cannot be of potential strategic importance because of a residential component, provided that there are no more than 500 dwellings and the buildings are below 30 metres in height, or 25 metres along the Thames. The scheme might still be ofstrategic importance because of non-residential factors. Paragraph (b) of my proposed subsection (3A) is a safeguard; it is an anti-avoidance provision to prevent schemes being split up, reflecting paragraphs (2)and (3) of the schedule to the draft order. AmendmentNo. 78C is to be taken as consequential onAmendment No. 78A, as it requires ““more substantial development”” and "““adjacent to the river Thames””" to be construed in accordance with an order. Amendment No. 78B specifically addresses the City of Westminster. While I am fully aware of the Minister’s position, it would be a little strange, given her movement on the City of London, if she does not yet accept this position on the matter. It illustrates exactly how unique each borough is and how impossible it is to attempt to apply a one-size-fits-all policy through the Mayor. The Bill’s planning provisions are in stark contrast to the lofty aims of the planning White Paper, which proudly states that the Government intend to, "““improve the ability of local authorities to shape their local communities””." The Government appear to be seeking to increase the powers of the Mayor to intervene at the expense of locally elected councillors. Amendment No. 78B provides that defined categories of commercial development are not of potential strategic importance if they accord with the development plan and are less than 60,000 square metres in floor space and 60 metres in height, or 25 metres adjoining the Thames. If a scheme has a mix of commercial and housing development, then the housing development is disregarded provided it meets the requirements of proposed new subsection (3A), and the commercial element will be judged against new subsection (3B). For clarity, ““the City of Westminster”” is an expression used in Acts of Parliament, without needing a definition, for example, in Section 3 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1969. Under the use classes, class 5—hot food takeaway—has not been included because a Cornish pasty takeaway application of potential strategic importance stretches the imagination a bit far. It certainly stretches mine. The amendments do not reinvent the wheel. They simply seek to allow the thresholds for mayoral intervention to remain at their current levels and to make special provision for unique areas of London. I beg to move.