Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 89: 89: Clause 33, page 37, line 4, after ““Authority”” insert ““which shall transfer the sum to the authority which would be the local planning authority in the absence of a direction by the Mayor under section 2A”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shallspeak also to Amendment No. 90, which relates to Clause 34. These amendments relate to planning applications. When we raised concerns at an earlier stage of the Bill about who would be in control of Section 106 matters, the Minister wrote to noble Lords explaining, as she explained again today, that the decision maker on the application is responsible for agreeing the planning application. I understand that, but it does not necessarily mean that the Mayor, as the planning authority, should hold funds that are transferred as a result of that negotiation. Amendment No. 89 was drafted in response to the Minister’s explanation. She told us about the tests that have to be met and that it is not a matter of thinking that it would be nice to charge something and then charge it. I understand that. However, the fact that there are tests to be met is not the same as, as she put it, the Mayor running away with the money. I had not quite thought of it in those terms. I think of it in rather the same way as the noble Baroness,Lady Hanham does. This starts as a local application which will end with a local effect and there should be local involvement in dealing with the planning obligation. Can the Minister explain how commuted payments—which are currently made at borough level and can be accumulated and used for a project within the borough—fit with what is proposed for the Mayor? My Amendment No. 90 was tabled because I am a little puzzled by proposed new Section 106A(12), in Clause 34(4), which states: "““The Mayor … must consult the local planning authority before exercising any function under this section””." My amendment would provide that the Mayor, "““must have due regard to the views of the authority which would be the local planning authority””," if he is minded not to exercise a function. In short, does proposed new subsection (12) also include not exercising a function? For instance, if the Mayor proposed not to enter into a Section 106A agreement, but the local planning authority thought that he should, what statutory opportunity would it have to make any representations? Would it have any say? I hope that the Minister can help me with that. I beg to move.