Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, we have had a powerful debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the Government’s intention in these clauses. I am glad that by providing the Mayor of London order we were able to have an informed debate. I was also pleased that we could have informal conversations to explain, because these issues are quite technical and difficult. Amendments Nos. 78A, 78B, 79 and 80 go to the heart of the Government’s purpose in providing additional planning powers for the Mayor. In order for those powers to be effective and relevant, it is crucial that the Mayor sees those planning applications that could be of importance to London and that he is restricted to intervening only in those that prove to be of genuine importance. It is the debate about that balance, which the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, referred to, that occupied so much of our time in Committee. We published the revised draft Mayor of London order, which proposes, at Category 1A of the schedule, a 150-unit threshold for applications involving housing. That has been the burden of much of the debate. Amendment No. 78A would ensure that the Mayor saw applications that included housing only if they were for the development of more than 500 units. We have to resist that amendment. Many of the reasons have already been set out, but I want to explain briefly why we have changed our approach to housing development. I need first to make absolutely clear how the Mayor of London already identifies applications of genuine strategic importance that may warrant intervention. Throughout our debates, I have tried to make it clear that defining whether an application is of strategic importance is a two-stage process. That process is mostly unchanged from that which operates now. The thresholds set out in the schedule to the draft Mayor of London order identify applications as being of potential strategic importance by virtue of, for example, their size, their height and their location. Developers make their planning applications to the boroughs, as they always have done. Boroughs assess the applications against the thresholds. If they consider that the application meets the thresholds, they refer it to the Mayor for consultation. The Mayor feeds his views on the application back to the borough, which then takes them into account alongside other considerations. Then, as is currently the case, the borough takes the application through the planning committee, makes a draft decision and refers it back to the Mayor. It is at this point that the Mayor applies the second stage, the policy test, to determine whether the application is of such genuine strategic importance that he should decide it. The process is essentially the same now, and developers in London boroughs are well used to it. The major change lies in the content of the policy test, which we have developed to ensure safeguards for the local planning authorities—the borough—to balance the necessary new powers of the Mayor. Throughout the debate, here and in the other place, we have developed our thinking in response to the presentations and arguments made to us. We originally proposed a one-part test, which simply required the Mayor to demonstrate that a development would have significant effects on the implementation of the London Plan. To explain that to noble Lords who have asked about it, that will rule out cases where the application is only in minor conflict with an individual London Plan policy and where that conflict has no tangible effect on the wider intentions of the London Plan. In response to representations in the House, we added a second part to the test, which requires the Mayor to show that there are sound planning reasons for his intervention. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me to define that. To intervene, the Mayor will also have to demonstrate that the initial decision on the application reached by the borough is flawed in planning terms, taking into account the policies in the development plan applied to the circumstances at the site. One example might cover a proposed development that appeared to be failing to provide adequate affordable housing for a site of that size, in that location, based on the policies of the development plan. To help to focus the Mayor’s power even more firmly on the limited number of key non-housing or waste planning applications out of those referred to him, there is a third test—the test of significance—which will require him to demonstrate that the physical effects of the development extend beyond the boundary of the borough that it is in. Those changes are set out in Article 8 of the draft order. This is important because we intend this to test more than whether a proposed development is visible across a boundary. Examples of the type of impact that we would consider to fall within the test would be a significant effect on the capacity of cross-border transport networks to carry additional passengers, or a significant diversion of trade, such as from a town centre in one borough to a huge retail development in another. Case by case, that is what we will be looking at. No one should be in any doubt—certainly, the Mayor is not—that these are tough tests to meet. They should provide reassurance to boroughs that the vast majority of decisions will remain with them. The geographic test applies only to non-housing and waste applications. We have looked again at housing and, for important reasons, made further changes to the order, to reduce the threshold for the size of housing developments that the Mayor will see from 500 units to 150. Let me be very clear about why we have made this distinction. My noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Best and other noble Lords have spoken about the crucial need for housing in London and the critical challenges faced by London in providing more housing—particularly affordable housing—and in managing waste. Between 2006 and 2016, household numbers in London are expected to increase by nearly 400,000—that is 40,000 per year. That is an enormous challenge. The need to raise our performance across London to meet that challenge is precisely our reason for introducing this change. It is not something that can be done on a borough basis; it should not even be a cross-borough issue. It is a key shared task for boroughs, the Mayor and, indeed, central government. As noble Lords have said, this goes very much to the heart of our capacity, as a Government, to deliver affordable homes. To reply to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the housing targets, set out and negotiated between the boroughs, are partly determined by the London Plan, but each borough has a set of circumstances that, as it works through its response in terms of what it can provide by way of affordable housing, is a realistic navigation between what is needed and what it can aspire to and provide. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, that the figure of 150 homes is not new. It is an extension of the existing 150-unit threshold, which relates only to schemes that do not accord with the development plan; that threshold was previously in Part 3 of the development order. We have already proposed changes to the thresholds on waste. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about family homes. We are conscious that we have not been building enough larger homes; we need more choice and to meet the demands of cohesion, which the noble Lord, Lord Best, discussed. In planning policy statement 3, we make it clear that we now need housing policies that meet the real and complex needs of families as they change and grow. That is reflected in the London Plan, which refers to a balanced mix of homes and different types of housing. The GLA carries out detailed research with boroughs to establish those needs. I will write to the noble Lord about densities because the situation is slightly more complicated. Some noble Lords argued that housing developments of 150 units are not strategically important because they are too small. I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who argued that the fact that the developments look small does not mean that they are insignificant. Cumulatively, if we assumed an average of 300 units per application, 12,000 new homes could fall within the scope of the provision, and 6,000 of them could be affordable. We are talking about significant numbers. The idea that smaller-scale developments cannot be significant is already established: the Secretary of State has already used her powers to intervene in housing proposals for as few as 15 units because they raise issues of wider importance. The changes introduce greater clarity. To reiterate, the Mayor will have to meet two tests before he can intervene in housing or waste applications. He will have to show that there is a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan and that there are sound planning reasons for intervening. There is a further safeguard against unwarranted mayoral interference. The Mayor must also take account, in deciding whether there are sound planning reasons to intervene, the extent to which the borough is meeting any relevant delivery targets that are set out in the plan. That involves, for example, whether the borough is achieving the development plan targets that it has signed up to in relation to affordable homes. Boroughs are doing their part to deliver new housing supply; many do so but some, as has been mentioned today, do not. If a borough is meeting its targets, it has nothing to fear. We have made these changes after a great deal of thought and consideration. I was asked about the Mayor’s delegation powers. The Mayor cannot delegate the decisions. It is for him to decide, which again adds to the significance of the arrangement. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised three examples. She was quite right: Heathrow would come under the new independent planning permission. The Olympics is covered by the fact that the powers now rest with the Olympic Delivery Authority. She also gave the example of wharves. It is perfectly fine to have a policy about wharves in the London Plan; the Mayor also has many other policies. He must apply all the policies that are relevant to a site in the context of the circumstances of a site. If he has a personal and direct interest in an application rather than a policy, he would not be able to take over a case. No more conditions of propriety apply there. I turn to the number of applications that may be involved. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, that we looked very hard at the evidence from the GLA’s database—that is the source that we would use to see how many might be brought within the scope of the provisions. On the best evidence that we have, there would be only 40 applications a year. The Mayor will still be the point of reference for only about 330 applications a year. I believe that that is entirely proportionate. We cannot accept the amendment for the strong reasons that I have offered. A threshold of 150 units, when taken with the other changes that we have made, represents a balanced approach which will protect a borough’s role. I turn to Amendment No. 78B and the thresholds for Westminster, on which I can be brief. When we launched this review of the Mayor’s planning powers, we were very clear that our starting point was the existing thresholds in the Mayor of London order. These have operated for seven years. The case for other boroughs having other thresholds was not made. The amendment has probably been inspired because of what we achieved for the City. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, we could not accept the fact that individual boroughs should have separate thresholds. That would result in very different levels within each borough. I turn to Amendment No. 78C. The first two terms to which the noble Baroness referred—that is, the ““application of strategic importance”” and, "““adjacent to the river Thames””—" are already defined in Part 1 of the schedule to the order. The term ““more substantial development”” as it is proposed to be used in the amendment does not, in our view, require a definition beyond the common-sense interpretation of those words. It would be clear in the circumstances of a particular case that that was so. I turn to the two amendments that were spoken to so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. We are very happy with the changes for the thresholds in the City because it is so different—it is unique—in relation to driving the national and regional economies. The noble Lord asked for a statement in Hansard. In terms of detail, we are amending the thresholds so that the height threshold for buildings in the City, which is set out in category 1C of the draft Mayor of London order, will be raised to 150 metres and the floorspace threshold applicable to the City, which is set out in category 1B, will be raised to 100,000 square metres. Those new higher thresholds do not apply to buildings that are adjacent to the Thames because of the river’s wider contribution to the character and views of the capital. The draft Mayor of London order already sets a specific height threshold of 25 metres for buildings along the Thames; this will remain unchanged. Significantly, this change will apply to both the Mayor’s existing power to direct refusal of planning applications and the new power to take over applications. For those obvious reasons, we cannot accept the amendment. We have consistently said that, because of the detail involved, the order and not the Bill is the appropriate vehicle. That arrangement has worked well for seven years. Amendment No. 80 seeks to amend what is now category 3E of the draft order to ensure that, where a development would require referral to the Mayor of applications for development of over 2,500 square metres that departed from the development plan, the development would need to be of a scale that would be contrary to the development plan as a whole or prejudicial to the implementation of the plan as a whole. The noble Lord argued that the phrase, "““more provisions of the development plan in force in the area””," could be said to mean that a conflict with an individual development plan policy could require the City to refer an application to the Mayor. I do not believe that that is the case. I listened closely to what he said. The category’s wording is unchanged from the original order and it has operated without difficulty for seven years. Circular 07/99 confirms that it is a matter of planning judgment for the local planning authority to determine what constitutes a departure. We do not think that minor conflicts would result in applications being referred to the Mayor. However, if it would reassure the noble Lord, I am happy to commit today to making this position explicit in the circular guidance that will accompany the new provisions. I hope that he is reassured. Finally, I turn to government Amendment No. 82, which is a technical amendment to clarify the definition of ““connected applications”” in new Section 2B. Connected applications are those that are so related to a planning application that when the Mayor takes over the application he will also become the decision-maker for those other applications. They relate to listed building consent, conservation area consent and hazardous substances consent. The amendment makes it clear that those applications include applications for the variation or discharge of conditions. This has been a large group of amendments. I am afraid that I have wearied the House but it was important to put some of that on the record. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.