Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 83: 83: Clause 31, page 36, line 3, at end insert— ““2BA Matters reserved for subsequent approval (1) If the Mayor of London has— (a) given a direction under section 2A in relation to an application (““the original application””), and (b) granted outline planning permission, he may, on an application for subsequent approval of reserved matters, direct that the application is to be decided by the local planning authority to whom the original application was made. (2) ““Outline planning permission”” has the meaning given by section 92(1). (3) If the Mayor of London has— (a) granted an application for listed building consent which is a connected application for the purposes of section 2B, and (b) imposed conditions requiring specified details to be approved subsequently, he may, on an application for subsequent approval, direct that the application is to be decided by the local planning authority to whom the connected application was made.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group contains government amendments and opposition amendments, and I shall speak to them all at the same time. There has been much debate about the scope of the Mayor’s powers over planning applications. We have always been clear that decisions on applications should be taken by boroughs wherever possible; indeed our proposals expressly provide for that. It is important that the Mayor takes only the decisions that it is appropriate for him to take. Government Amendment No. 83 is an important change to give further effect to that principle of delegation. It will provide an express power for the Mayor to pass the decision-making on subsequent applications for approval of reserved matters that are related to planning applications that he has determined in outline back to the relevant borough. That provision relates specifically to the approval of reserved matters and the approval of details under a listed building consent. We have already provided through Clause 31 for the Mayor to leave applications for varying or discharging planning conditions attached to planning permissions with boroughs and, following discussions with stakeholders—again we have listened—this new provision ensures that decisions on all applications are taken at the appropriate level. Amendment No. 84 provides for a new Section 2A order to implement or supplement this new provision for the Mayor to pass decisions back to the relevant borough. Currently, we see no need to exercise the power but if, in future, it should prove necessary it would be done through the Mayor of London order. Therefore, we fully considered the case when we discussed these amendments for making all related subsequent approvals the responsibility of boroughs without involving the Mayor, as Amendments Nos. 83A to 83H would have us do. We were alive to those issues. But most of the details related to those matters, although not in all circumstances, would rightly be for the boroughs to determine. However, the circumstances of each approval request will be different. It is undoubtedly the case that some of those approvals could raise issues that will go to the heart of the original planning permission granted by the Mayor; for example, how details of access to a site could affect wider circulation routes in London. The Mayor should have an opportunity to consider each application on its merits and decide whether it would be appropriate for him to determine it. I am clear that that would be very much the exception, and the expectation is that the borough will be responsible for deciding these matters. We will make that position clear in guidance that accompanies the new Act. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied with that. I do not disagree with the sentiment of Amendment No. 83F, but I cannot accept it as we cannot envisage that the situation covered by the proposed amendment could arise. We have provided for the Mayor to delegate to the relevant borough decision-making on approval of details under a listed building consent because that is where the details tend to fall out, but we are not aware of conservation area consents or consent under the hazardous substances regime being granted in that way. I realise that this is a technical point. If it would help, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to expand on the differences between those two regimes. I beg to move.