Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 81: 81: Clause 31, page 35, line 17, leave out ““and 2C”” and insert ““to 2C and 2E”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this will be a shorter debate but no less significant. I hope the government amendments which seek to introduce a new clause to the Bill will be welcomed on all sides of the House. Again we have listened closely to the views of stakeholders. Let me start with the main amendment, Amendment No. 87, which gives effect to and, indeed, goes further than the commitment I made previously and further demonstrates the importance we attach to ensuring that the way in which the Mayor will make decisions on planning applications will be open and transparent, while respecting the practical circumstances of the Mayor as a single decision-maker. New Section 2E brings on to the face of the Bill a requirement for the Mayor to give the local planning authority and the applicant an opportunity to make oral representations to him about a development proposal. It further requires the Mayor to prepare and publish a document setting out any other persons he will hear oral representations from, the procedures he will follow for considering oral representations and the arrangements for identifying the factual information that is agreed by the parties. These provisions were previously set out in the draft Mayor of London order. I am sure noble Lords will welcome this change to put them on the face of the Bill because, as I said, we have listened to legitimate concerns. In keeping with my commitment to the House, new Section 2E also requires the Secretary of State to apply, by order, the requirements of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 relating to public access to local authority committee meetings, relevant documents and the representation hearings the Mayor must hold, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient. Requirements such as ensuring that representation hearings are open to the public and the public have access to agendas and reports are important to ensuring that mayoral decision-making is as open and as transparent as that of borough planning commissions. We will apply the detailed requirements of Part 5A through the Mayor of London order. For the avoidance of doubt, let me explain that the modifications we have made in the provisions of Part 5A are technical amendments to ensure that the provisions work as intended given the key differences between the way local authorities are constituted and the mayoral model. They certainly do not affect the substance or intentions of the 1972 Act. Government Amendments Nos. 81, 85 and 86 are technical amendments consequential to Amendment No. 87 and I hope they are uncontroversial. Amendment No. 81 simply makes clear that new Section 2E contains provisions supplementing the provisions in Section 2A. Amendment No. 85 makes clear that the power to make an order in new Section 2E shall be exercised by statutory instrument. Amendment No. 86 requires that a statutory instrument made under Section 2E shall be subject annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament. Again our amendments demonstrate that we have listened closely to what we have been told. They further strengthen the new arrangements to provide for open, effective and balanced decision-making. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 87A to 87C, 87CA, 87D and 87E, which would have us go even further. I understand the principle behind the amendments but the logic is flawed. Let me explain why I have to resist them. They seek to amend new Section 2E to require the Mayor to hold a representation hearing to allow the applicant and the relevant London borough to make oral representations to him before he decides whether to exercise his current power to direct a borough to refuse a planning application in addition to the requirement to do so under his new power to determine applications. I can understand and appreciate the opportunistic intention behind the amendment to try to put on a power; the Mayor’s existing power and his new one. But the powers are not the same and they do not warrant the same arrangements. Under his new power, the Mayor could grant positive planning permission against which, under existing planning law, there is no right of appeal for any party. Therefore it is crucial—this is why we have made the change—that key interested parties are afforded the best opportunity to make their case to the decision-maker before the decision is made. As there is no subsequent right of appeal, it is the only opportunity they will get to make their case. Our amendment ensures that that opportunity is there. There is no equivalent on the London boroughs. The existing power of the Mayor is very different because, under that power, the Mayor can only say no to development. If this happens under planning law, the applicant is provided a full opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State and, as a result, to make their case, in person if appropriate, at an inquiry or hearing. That is a full and effective safeguard against decisions. In deciding whether to direct the refusal of an application, the Mayor will have had the benefit of seeing all the information that was available to the borough when it considered the application and he will be fully informed of the cases for and against the development. Those arrangements have operated very well for seven years and the Mayor has exercised great restraint on using the power to refuse. So I am not convinced of the case. Amendment No. 87CA provides a right for any oral objectors to a planning application being decided by the Mayor to appear before him at a representation hearing if the initial decision of the borough has been to refuse planning permission. Again I cannot accept the amendment. I understand the intention is very well meant but we would be creating a monstrous process which would be totally unmanageable and cause unreasonable delay. Let me explain why. For the large-scale, important planning applications to which the Mayor’s power is intended to be applied, there could literally be hundreds, if not thousands, of objectors. To provide a right for all of them or their representatives to speak in person to the Mayor would be unworkable. This is not intended to open the door to a widening of the amendment, but it is not clear why the amendment would solely seek to cater for the views of objectors in the event that the borough had intended to turn down an application. In reality, objectors would be just as interested in giving their views to the Mayor where the borough intended to grant planning permission. New Section 2E places a requirement on the Mayor to prepare and publish a document setting out any persons in addition to the applicant and local planning authority from whom he will hear oral representations; clearly, that could include objectors to a proposed development. But it must be a matter of choice for the Mayor and he has to bear in mind, as he does, that his decisions are closely scrutinised by the public. On those grounds, I hope noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw their amendments. I beg to move.