 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Greater London Authority |
Greater London Authority Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Keith Neary, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 16 January 2007(Morning)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Greater London Authority Bill10.30
am Further written evidence to be reported to the House for publication GLA 4 London
Councils
Clause 29Duties
in relation to
consultation
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Minister for Housing and Planning (Yvette Cooper):
The
clause reflects clause 2, which we debated earlier in our proceedings.
It strengthens the role of the assembly when the Mayor prepares or
revises his spatial development strategy, the London plan, and mirrors
the strengthened assembly role in the Mayor’s other statutory
strategies set out in clause 2, which the Committee agreed last Tuesday
should stand part of the
Bill.
The provisions
for consultation on the London plan are set out separately from the
Mayor’s other strategies under section 335 of the Greater London
Authority Act 1999. The clause amends that section to require the Mayor
to have regard to the comments of the assembly and the functional
bodies in response to consultation on the drafts of, or the revisions
to, his London
plan.
Mr.
Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Con): Will the Minister
advise the Committee of the importance of the words “must have
regard”? How is that a change from the current position in
relation to the assembly’s
role?
Yvette
Cooper:
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and as we
debated in earlier proceedings, the Mayor has an obligation to consult,
but it is also important that the Mayor should have an obligation to
have regard to the views of the assembly. That will strengthen the
position of the assembly relative to the position under the 1999 Act.
The clause is a helpful step in respect of the role of the assembly.
The Mayor must also respond in writing to the chair of the assembly and
explain which of the assembly’s comments he accepts for
implementation in the plan and which he rejects. That will provide
clarity and transparency in the relationship between the assembly and
the Mayor in their debate on the London plan. The provision will put
the London plan on the same footing as the Mayor’s other
strategies.
Mr.
Pelling:
I am appraised of the fact that we are not to
spend too much time discussing particular individuals, but, under the
current regime at city hall, surely the main response to us from the
Mayor would be that he was elected and that he can decide what to do.
Would that really significantly improve the powers of the
assembly?
Yvette
Cooper:
The Bill makes it clear that the Mayor must
respond in writing to chair of the assembly, explaining which of the
assembly’s comments he accepts and which he rejects. Obviously,
personal battles between the hon. Gentleman and the Mayor are not a
matter for the
Committee.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Can the Minister
help with my question? Under the budgetary procedures for the assembly,
the Mayor is obliged to respond to those matters on which he disagrees
with the assembly’s proposed amendments. On first
reading—as it is sometimes called for shorthand
purposes—the assembly can amend the Mayor’s budget. He
must respond in writing when he drafts his final budget and say why he
disagrees with the assembly’s amendments. In practice, we
receive about five lines on paper—just about enough to comply
with the Wednesbury reasonableness test—to say that he disagrees
with the assembly’s amendments because they are not consistent
with his policy and what he believes to be the objectives that he was
elected to carry out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central
said.
I do not
understand how such a provision will produce any other result from the
Mayor. He will stick just within what is required by his lawyers to
keep him within the law. If there were no hold over him in respect of
the assembly having the ability to amend the strategies, all that will
happen is a banal throwing back of them in his face. I accept that the
provision is well intended, but I cannot help but feel that it has the
whiff of a compromise that has been cobbled together by the Labour
party so that the assembly is bought off with a minor right to have
regard taken of its comments because the Mayor would not take the
logical step of giving the assembly real teeth with which to amend the
strategies. It is regrettable, therefore, that in this case, as with
the previous clause that we referred to, the Government have ducked the
chance of seizing an
opportunity.
Tony
Travers, the academic referred to on a number of occasions, has talked
about the logic of developing a legislative role for the assembly in
the sense that if it could amend strategies, that would require the
Mayor not just to come back with a bland response, but to deal with the
assembly. That would be a healthy thing. For these purposes, as we have
said in debate on previous amendments, that could be achieved by some
qualified majority, which is more than the simple majority that
Conservative Members would prefer. However, we could live with that for
the sake of compromise.
However, I still do not
understand from the Minister how this measure will achieve much for the
assembly in practice. It may require the Mayor to go through a
formulaic process, and I suppose there is a point that that is more
transparent than simply saying no without
stating any reason. I go with the Government as far as that, but the
point made by me and by others is that the way the Mayor
operates—it could be any Mayor of any political party, because
the nature of the post means that it is likely to attract big
personalities, who sometimes have big egos—means that there is
every risk that, under the current regime, any Mayor might give the
assembly pretty short shrift in giving any reasons to it. Would it not
be much better to give the assembly the ability to amend strategies?
The Mayor would then have to take the assembly’s comments
seriously.
In a
nutshell, having regard is a very worthy concept, but to have regard
and then make a rather basic gesture in response is not much of a power
for the assembly to have. That is what practice tells us we are likely
to get from the Mayor, unless this measure is significantly
strengthened.
Yvette
Cooper:
I shall respond briefly. Hon. Members have raised
a series of concerns, and it is unusual to hear politicians criticised
for the brevity of their responses. The hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst might find it inappropriate for the Committee to legislate,
within either primary or secondary legislation, for lengthy responses
that must be of 10 pages or
more.
The spirit of
the legislation is clear. The Mayor will need to explain adequately why
he does not accept the recommendations put forward by the assembly. It
would be rather too much to expect us to legislate for either the
assembly or the Mayor to show different forms of politeness towards
each
other.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 29
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 30Local
development
schemes
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Clauses 31 to 35 stand
part.
New clause
12—Amendment of
TCPA—
‘(1) TCPA 1990 is
amended as follows.
(2) In
section 12(3C) leave out “be in general conformity with”
and insert “have regard
to”.
(3) In section
13(1A) leave out “is in general conformity with” and
insert “has regard
to”.
(4) In section
13(5A) leave out “is not in general conformity with” and
insert “does not have regard
to”.
(5) In section
15(2A) leave out “are in general conformity with” and
insert “have regard
to”.
(6) Leave out
section 21A.
(7) In section 26
leave out subsection
(2)(bb).
(8) In section 74
leave out subsections (1B) and
(1C).
(9) Leave out section
322B.’.
Michael
Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): Conservative Members have
tabled proposals, which are reflected in proposals tabled by the
Liberal Democrats, to strike out this part of the Bill. We have done so
because we
believe it is probably the most important, certainly the most
contentious and undoubtedly the least attractive element of the
legislation. This part of the Bill fails those three tests because it
constitutes the most naked power grab by the Mayor, or a future one, at
the expense of the London
boroughs.
Throughout
the debate, the Opposition have consistently aimed to ensure that
legislation that is passed is as devolutionary as possible. Whenever
power has been devolved down from the Government to the Mayor, we have
welcomed that. We have naturally sought to ensure that there are
adequate powers of scrutiny to balance the Mayor’s new powers
and that those powers of scrutiny be invested in the assembly or the
boroughs as appropriate. However our general direction of travel has
been clear—namely, to welcome that devolution of
power.
In other areas,
we have been anxious to see devolution go further, consistent with the
vision outlined by the Secretary of State whenever she has spoken about
local government more generally. We have been anxious to see
neighbourhoods and boroughs empowered at the appropriate moment. That
was the spirit in which we moved our amendments, sadly rejected, to the
Mayor’s housing
strategy.
Here, we
have the clearest example in the legislation of that devolutionary
spirit being overturned. We already have a system of planning that
gives the boroughs not just the lead role, but a vital function to play
in reflecting local public opinion when it comes to shaping the future
of our communities. These changes will, in crucial ways, deprive the
boroughs of the capacity to discharge their functions and to reflect
local opinion. Therefore, it is in a devolutionary spirit that we
oppose them. However, it is more than a commitment to the principle of
devolution that prompts us to ask for these clauses to be removed and
the Government to think again.
We also believe that the
clauses fail the crucial efficiency test that should apply to new
legislation. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
asked Kate Barker to look at land use planning because there was a
widespread consensus that our planning system was dysfunctional: it was
too slow, too bureaucratic and in need of reform. Kate Barker’s
recommendations, some of which are more attractive than others, all
seek to move in one direction—to make the planning system more
transparent and speedier, and to serve the interests not just of
business, but of those of us who believe in meeting our housing supply
problems more effectively. The spirit of Kate Barker’s review,
however, is not reflected in these
clauses.
Let me turn
to the powers in clause 30 that enable the Mayor to direct changes to
the local development schemes proposed by the boroughs. Any number of
acronyms exist across the UK for the specific plans that boroughs, or
the principal planning authorities, put forward to master-plan their
area. There used to be UDPs, or unitary development plans, and there
are now LDFs, or local development frameworks, in many parts of the
country. Those plans are LDSs in London, for the sake of the Bill.
Whether they are UDP, LDF or LDS, the principle remains the same, and
that principle is KIL—keep it local.
Michael
Gove:
Thank you. The important thing about those
schemes is that they allow community groups and stakeholders to shape
the development of their area.
Michael
Gove:
I have no wish to expose the Bill to Quentin
Tarantino-esque evisceration, but this is one part of it that we want
to
kill.
Michael
Gove:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if there were
an Uma Thurman role in the Bill, it would fall to the Minister for
Housing and
Planning.
The
importance of keeping local powers local is that they allow the people
who live in a community a vital say in shaping how that community
develops. They ensure that the affection that local people have for the
area in which they have grown up or in which they work and live is
reflected in the strategic view that locally elected representatives
take of the development of their area. Under clause 30, the Mayor will
acquire a power, which currently only the Secretary of State has, to
direct changes to that plan. That means that the Mayor could rewrite
the plan in accordance with either his strategic or his ideological
objectives. We are concerned that that is a further dilution of the
powers that local people have.
It is understandable why the
Secretary of State should have the power to direct changes, but one
point that we need to make about the Secretary of State directing
changes is that that process slows down planning significantly. We have
already had a number of examples of districts and local authorities
outside London coming forward expeditiously with an LDF, submitting it
to the Secretary of State and then having it thrown back in their face,
forcing them to go back to the drawing board. During this period in the
process of planning, the certainty that developers expect and that
residents have every right to expect is denied them. The process of
plan making has become slower and more cumbersome following the changes
to planning legislation made by the Government. They claim to want to
make the planning system more streamline, effective, market conscious
and sensitive to community involvement, but they have succeeded in
slowing the process, which has disappointed developers and irritated
residents.
10.45
am
Clause 30
introduces another layer of complexity to the scheme. Currently, the
Secretary of State can direct changes: clause 30 means that the Mayor
could also direct changes. The senior planning officer in a local
authority may attempt to develop a local development scheme with
elected members of the authority, by consulting local amenity groups,
and by doing everything possible to talk to those commercial interests
that keep the borough lively and successful. What happens to that
process when that officer has heavy-handed intervention not only from
the clunking fist of central Government, but from the south paw from
city hall? That double whammy will leave local
planners punch drunk. For that reason, we believe that the power
direction should be struck out. It serves neither the interests of
efficiency or the priority of community involvement.
On the importance of community
involvement in planning, some inevitably say that Conservatives,
Liberal Democrats and localists are all too keen on local boroughs
deciding things because they are closet nimbys—people who hide
behind the language of localism because of their resistance to
development. Allow me to take that argument head on. As the Minister
for Housing and Planning has graciously acknowledged to the Committee,
and in the House last night, those of us charged by the leader of the
Conservative party with coming up with housing and planning policy have
made it clear that we believe in increasing the supply of housing. That
is the coherent view of the Department for Communities and Local
Government shadow team. It is also the view of the leader of the
Conservative party, as he outlined in his speech to the Conservative
party conference.
Michael
Gove:
The Minister for Housing and Planning says,
“Sometimes”, but I urge her to come up with any evidence
that the leader of the Conservative party has argued against an
increase of the housing supply. He has actually taken a lead in shaping
the debate, and has pointed out some of the obstacles that we will have
to overcome to deliver an increase in the housing supply. I have
alluded to the obstacles that have been created by the
Government’s planning legislation. I am sure that the other
obstacles will come up later in the debate.
The first canard, which I have
effectively nailed, is the idea that the Conservatives are in some
sense opposed to more housing as a solution to housing supply problems.
Let us look at the facts on the ground—what boroughs in London
are doing to deliver housing. In her more partisan moments, which
thankfully are rare, the Minister for Housing and Planning makes the
point that Conservative boroughs are somehow resistant to the notion of
providing additional housing. Earlier, I pointed out that if one looks
at the targets set by the Government, and then at the performance of
Conservative boroughs, one can see that Wandsworth has exceeded its
target for housing completions by 168 per cent., Westminster by 124 per
cent., and Kensington and Chelsea, which was pointed out as a laggard
by the Minister, by 104 per cent. When we look for the local
authorities in central London that have been poorest in meeting their
housing targets, I am afraid that we find local authorities such as
Camden, which was until recently under Labour control, and
Southwark.
The same
pattern occurs in north London. The local authority with the best
record of meeting housing targets is Conservative-controlled Barnet,
which is on the threshold of a significant and exciting array of new
developments. Looking at east London, we see that Bexley has met 205
per cent. of the target for housing completions, more than doubling the
target level of housing set by the Government. I should say, in a
spirit of bipartisanship, that the best-performing local authority in
east London is Greenwich, which is
Labour-controlled. But I shall deal with that in a moment when I discuss
the inappropriateness of extending planning powers to the Mayor. There
are specific factors relating to Greenwich: it is sui generis for
various
reasons.
Across
London, Conservative boroughs perform the best in meeting the housing
obligations placed on them by this Government. Conservative local
authorities have also been speedy and effective in dealing with
planning applications. Who are the laggards? Again, they are the local
authorities like Lewisham, where Labour has been in control. Lewisham
has processed only 53 per cent. of major planning applications in the
time scale laid down by the Government. That is in stark contrast with
Westminster, for example, which processes about three quarters of
planning
applications.
We have
established that if we want housing completion figures to rise and
planning applications to be processed speedily, the answer is not to
transfer more powers to the Mayor, but for Conservative administrations
to run boroughs. In that respect, the answer to the Minister’s
bedtime prayer for more homes in London is not legislative change, but
change at the ballot box. I do not know where the Minister is fortunate
enough to live when she has to spend time in London, but I presume that
it is probably in Westminster council’s area. If that is so, she
is fortunate enough to be living in an area that exceeds its housing
targets and processes its planning applications quickly. If that is not
so, perhaps she would care to enlighten
us.
Stephen
Pound:
The hon. Gentleman reminds me of Gordon Strachan in
the Aberdeen team of 1983, who, although he was overshadowed at the
time by giants like John Hewitt and Willie Miller, later rose to
greater prominence. This is a good attempt by the hon. Gentleman to
make his name, but can he stop for a moment and think? If he is really
thinking of structuring a critique of the Bill on the grounds of
political leadership of the boroughs, for every Kensington and Chelsea
that he names, we can mention a Hillingdon. There are arguments on both
sides. This is a poor way to approach the matter. We are trying to talk
about city standards, not parish pump politics. Of course, I mean
Hillingdon a few years ago, not
today.
Michael
Gove:
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am
flattered to be compared with Gordon Strachan, rather than Willie
Miller, who was a captain of rare skill although sadly his managerial
career was not as happy. That suggests that we should all know our
place—and I know mine. I shall try not to get above myself in
this Committee and elsewhere. However, I will correct the hon.
Gentleman, who normally has scrupulous regard for the facts, on the
facts themselves, and I hope this will not be construed as my getting
above myself. Hillingdon has managed to exceed its housing targets by
106 per cent., whereas the London borough of Ealing—in the
figures covering the period when it was under Labour
control—only met 84 per cent. of the housing targets set by the
Government. Tragically, under Labour control, Ealing council did not
meet those housing targets and did not deliver the completions that I
am sure the hon. Gentleman would
have championed for his constituents as a good constituency Member of
Parliament.
I make
these points about political control because the Government have
continually misrepresented the Conservative position and argued that
our localism is a cover for a deeper ideological resistance to
increasing housing supply. The facts on the ground—the record of
Conservative councils—show that that is not so. Thus, a major
strut of the Government’s justification, not just for this
legislation but for some of their other legislation, is at a stroke
removed.
Ms
Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North) (Lab): As
the hon. Gentleman has broached the subject of politics, does he not
appreciate that there is a clear political distinction in the
Government’s mind between meeting housing targets and meeting
affordable housing targets? That is at the heart of our politics. Does
he accept that Westminster city council, which he has prayed in aid,
took legal advice to challenge the Government and the Mayor of London
on meeting the 50 per cent. target for affordable housing? We therefore
had the situation exemplified by the Paddington basin development, in
which there were 1,000 new homes, of which only 250 were affordable,
despite the desperate level of housing need. Does he not agree that
from the Labour party side the politics is in meeting housing need and
making affordable housing provision, not just in housing for
millionaires?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Everyone in
the Committee knows her commitment, not just to increasing housing but
to increasing affordable housing, and to doing something to tackle
inequalities in London in housing and in other areas. We should,
however, recognise something that in certain more candid moments the
Mayor has acknowledged. It is that the uniform target of 50 per cent.
affordable housing, together with—within that—70 per
cent. socially rented housing, may not be appropriate in all
developments. As I mentioned the last time we discussed housing
strategy, in the area set aside for Olympic development the Mayor has
himself allowed housing for which the target has not been
met.
Michael
Gove:
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in due
course. It is important to recall that even though there is a London
housing market, there are also sub-regional markets, and important
factors that govern housing in different parts of London. Any local
authority must weigh a number of factors. At the moment, when a
developer considers proposing a development, there are a number of
obligations that he must envisage. There are broader, section 106
obligations that he may have to meet. Then there is the affordable
housing obligation, which is often part of the section 106 negotiation.
If the Government now have their way—after last night’s
results, there will be the broader planning gain supplement obligation
that the developer will have to consider
fulfilling.
There have
been a number of occasions when, having looked at the scale of the
obligations, developers have
said that a development may be unviable. From the figures in Inside
Housing that I quoted earlier in our deliberations, we have seen
that setting the affordable housing criteria wrongly may cause the
developer to decide to withdraw his application. That would mean not
only no housing for millionaires, or for the intermediate market, but
no affordable housing either. Although the hon. Member for Regent's
Park and Kensington, North may think that we do not need housing for
millionaires, the question in my mind is who would fund the Labour
party if we did not. Anyway, my broader point is that there needs to be
an element of local
discretion.
Mr.
Slaughter:
We have been entertained by the notion that no
Tory council is nimbyist and that all Tory councils want to build
houses. I assume, therefore, that the early-day motions tabled by the
hon. Gentleman’s colleague, which oppose house building in
almost every region, must have been an administrative error. The hon.
Gentleman is now struggling, however. He has yet again named one
development to which he is clinging like driftwood. It may be that one
development does not suit, or that another could be better. Does he,
however, support overall the Mayor’s
target?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention made two
apparently unrelated points, but there was a deep logic behind them
that he himself may not have realised, although I suspect that he did.
He referred to the various early-day motions of some of my hon. Friends
who have expressed concerns about aspects of the south-east plan, or
the east of England plan, or any of the plans that have been regionally
decided. The concerns relate to the whole philosophy of central target
setting as a way of meeting housing need. They reflect a philosophical
divide between the Labour party and the Conservative party which is
also reflected in the discussion on affordable housing targets. Our
view is that using targets as constraints, as straitjackets, and as
ways to compel particular developments can often be counter-productive.
An analogy that I would use is the way in which the economy was managed
in the 1960s and 1970s by proliferation of centrally set
targets.
We believe
that we need supply-side changes to ensure that the market works
effectively, with powers of intervention for local communities to
ensure that their interests are effectively
addressed.
11
am
Mr.
Pelling:
Not wanting to be described as another item of
driftwood, I offer to my hon. Friend the observation that the way in
which Croydon, a Conservative council and a big social housing provider
until 1994, is once again building council housing—with the aid
of a Government grant, I admit—is another sign of activism by
Conservative councils to provide much-needed social and council housing
in the capital.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
Conservative boroughs’ desire to invest in housing is attested
from the south in Croydon—I shall
not make a distinction between the south-east and south-west—and
from the north-west in Barnet, where, as I have mentioned, the borough
wishes to proceed with exciting plans to increase dramatically both
commercial and residential development. I am not pointing to any
specific example, although I shall come up with some later. I am making
a broad point of how one can increase supply
overall.
Ms
Buck:
As I think the hon. Gentleman recognised, the Mayor
factors flexibility into the 50 per cent. target to meet some of the
concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises. To follow him down the road of
not being too rigid in targets, one of the ways that that has been done
is by encouraging boroughs to work together in local partnerships. My
Conservative-controlled borough is working in partnership with another
Conservative-controlled borough in north London which effectively
refuses to allow the borough any access to the housing provision that
he said was being built. Is he satisfied with how boroughs even of the
same politics—his politics—are working together to meet
housing requirements and ensure that the high-cost boroughs not
expected to meet the targets get access to housing
provision?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I
recognise that it was not made in a partisan spirit. As a Member of
Parliament for a constituency covering both Westminster and Kensington
and Chelsea, she represents the two boroughs with the highest housing
costs in Britain.
Residents of Westminster have a
particular concern, because Westminster is the entry point for many new
Britons and newcomers to Britain. As a consequence, migratory and
economic forces create huge pressure on housing in Westminster. When it
comes to meeting its statutory requirements to house the homeless and
fulfil housing need, Westminster faces almost unique challenges. There
is a case for considering how other boroughs could support Westminster
in meeting that housing need. I agree that there is room for
improvement in co-ordination in that respect. I do not believe that the
Mayor is the right person to drive the process, but I recognise the
importance of
that.
Mr.
Pelling:
Is not my hon. Friend exactly right in decrying
the disadvantages of centrally or regionally set targets, as they have
produced an excess supply of one and two-bedroomed flats when the need
is for family housing? A 10-year delay in re-housing people out of
social housing—perhaps in one or two-bedroomed facilities for a
family of four or five—shows a fundamental failure of centrally
provided targets. Surely it is at a local level that boroughs are best
placed to provide much-needed social housing in
London.
Michael
Gove:
Once again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
In the current planning system, we have in effect a system similar to
the one that gave us the Lada, the Polski Fiat and the Yugo—a
system that concentrates on production but not quality. One of the
concerns about housing supply in this country is the over-supply of one
and two-bedroomed flats relative to the supply of family
homes.
The Minister for Housing and
Planning acknowledged that in a groundbreaking interview with The
Observer; I recommend such interviews to all Committee members. She
acknowledged the need for more family homes and fewer one and
two-bedroomed flats in the balance of supply. It was a mea culpa, or at
least an acknowledgment that the Government had got it wrong. She
pointed out that there were a number of attractive developments of
family homes—in Barking and Dagenham, for example—which
just might point the way forward, but what she did not acknowledge was
how centrally set targets had been responsible for the
problem.
Specifically, the target for
which people aimed was the number of housing units
completed—not, as might have been the case, the number of rooms
or amount of floor space, so that overcrowding and the need for family
homes might be addressed. The Government might change those targets,
but they are still so addicted to their centrally set target culture
that all we will get is a roomier Lada. Talking of which, I shall give
way to the Member for
Battersea.
Martin
Linton (Battersea) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman acknowledges
the need for a regional housing strategy. Surely he accepts that the
current function of ensuring that local housing strategies conform with
the regional housing strategy lies with the Government office for
London. The Bill is devolving that power from GOL to the elected Mayor
of London. Who does the hon. Gentleman suggest should be responsible
for the regional housing
strategy?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which
accurately reflects the position of those on the Labour Benches.
However, it was better made in our debate last week when we
specifically discussed our housing strategy. As I acknowledged at the
time, housing and planning are intimately interlinked. Our point was
that we wanted London councils, as did all local authorities before the
advent of regional government, to arrange such matters between
themselves in a co-operative fashion. Our view did not prevail then,
nor do I wish to revisit that debate as I want to move on to other
planning issues. However, I acknowledge that the two are
linked.
Ms
Buck:
The debate goes to the heart of an important issue,
which is localism versus the strategic needs of the city as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman kindly appreciated the dilemma of central London
boroughs in respect of their housing pressure. They are not alone. If
there were no strategic authority and, above all, one that has a
democratic mandate, too, in what way does he suggest a borough such as
Barnet and Enfield could take the overspill housing demands of a
central London borough if it were not by strategic direction?
Altruism?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Lady is tempting us to advance on a longer
argument about how local government operates and, for that matter, the
way in which support is provided from central Government to providers
of social housing. Tempting as that route is—there might be
another opportunity for her and I to have such a conversation—my
point about broader
planning issues is that we already have a centralised planning system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central said, that system has
often meant inadequate houses in the wrong places built in the wrong
way, not through malice but through a failure of the centralised
system.
There is a
better way to take account primarily of local feeling, which includes
greater freedom for local authorities and also takes a more sensitive
account of market pressures, as Kate Barker suggested. It is by moving
in those directions that we can develop a more effective housing and
planning strategy for the whole nation. I should have described the
process as a more effective housing and planning policy because, as the
hon. Lady said, I distrust the principle of strategies. As she probably
knows, a new book on estates by Lynsey Hanley has been widely reviewed
this week. It points out some of the problems that we have had with
social housing. Some of them were at their most acute when strategic
powers were exercised by visionary individuals who did not take
sufficient account of local sentiment, a phenomenon that is also
happening outside London in our pathfinder and housing renewal
areas.
Mr.
Slaughter:
That is another interesting debate. However, I
prefer the steel of my local Tory planning chairwoman who said at the
weekend, as a reason for not building any more houses, that housing in
the borough was skewed towards the poor. To be fair to her, she said it
was skewed towards the rich and the poor—those two nefarious or
meritorious groups being equal. I prefer that approach to the crocodile
tears of the Member for Croydon, Central about families, because how
does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath justify the fact that only four
social rented homes were completed in Kingston in the past financial
year, six were completed in Havering and nine in Wandsworth? Is his
real reason for opposing the targets that have been set so that Tory
councils can build almost no social housing at
all?
Michael
Gove:
Absolutely not, and I acknowledge that, when the
planning chairwoman at Hammersmith and Fulham said that, she was
opening a large debate. One of the matters that the local authority in
Hammersmith and Fulham has to grasp is the broader question, which goes
to the heart of what the Minister for Housing and Planning and the
Chancellor of Exchequer seek to do, of expanding the provision of
low-cost home ownership schemes.
It is the
Government’s aim—once again, another target—to
increase the number of people who are home owners from 70 to 80 per
cent. As they seek to do so, again they come up with a host of new
schemes and a plethora of new targets. However, this proliferation of
schemes and targets has not succeeded in meeting that need. For a
variety of reasons, there are increasing problems for first-time buyers
trying to get on the housing ladder and a low take-up of the
Government’s low-cost home ownership schemes. I shall not
rehearse the dreary statistics that show the Government’s
failure because I know that they are engraved on the Minister’s
heart.
When it comes
to intervening in planning applications, clauses 31 to 35 give the
Mayor increased latitude. I have explained why it is that we believe
that
the powers exercised by the Mayor only make this already bureaucratic
and complex system more so. I have explained briefly why we believe
that those powers are anti-democratic. Crucially, the extension of the
Mayor’s powers that would result from clauses 31 to 35 marks a
remarkable erosion of local democracy.
At the
moment, as Committee members know, the Mayor has the power, in specific
cases, to direct refusal of a planning application if it conflicts with
part of the London plan. What the Mayor wants is the power to direct
acceptance of planning applications—in effect, to take over the
whole planning function. The power of direct refusal is basically there
as a back-stop. We could argue about whether or not it has been wisely
or unwisely used. I will discuss the way in which the Mayor has used
his planning powers and explain why some of us fear the extension of
those powers. However it is important to recognise that a wide variety
of planning applications are already being referred to the Mayor or
prompting an expression of mayoral interest.
When we have
discussed the extension of planning powers, the Minister and, indeed,
the Mayor have said that they envisage the Mayor only exercising them
on very few occasions. Again, unfortunately, the facts suggest that
that just ain’t so. The Mayor has expressed an opinion in more
than 1,200 planning applications since his office was created. Many of
those have been applications—more than 200 of them—that
have passed the strategic test which the Government have set.
It is interesting that the
Government have brought forward an order—a piece of secondary
legislation—that will define the test and allow the Mayor to
intervene positively to take over a planning application. Far from the
test being tighter and the definition of “strategic”
being more narrowly drawn than was hitherto the case with previous
interventions, the definition is, to all intents and purposes, almost
exactly the same. Therefore we believe that the Mayor will have the
power to intervene in a dramatic number of cases.
Why do we believe that? The
Mayor has already chosen to intervene using one reason as a casus
belli—a justification for intervention—and then suddenly
found lots of other reasons subsequently to justify it. For example,
under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, the
Mayor can intervene if a building is particularly high, over a specific
number of metres and, implicitly, over a specific number of storeys.
Therefore, he can intervene if it is over 30 m, over 10 storeys and in
any area apart from the City of London. However, having intervened on
the basis of height, the Mayor has then used his powers to say a host
of other things about that development. The intention of the secondary
legislation was to ensure that the Mayor is a guardian of the London
skyline, but he has used that power as a Trojan horse to interfere, or
to seek to interfere, in a host of other
factors.
11.15
pm
For
Labour Members, the notion of using one justification for intervention
and then doing something completely different will remind them of the
Iraq war, where one justification was used before other justifications
were deployed. I make no comment about the rightness
of such a strategy when it comes to foreign affairs, but any Labour
Member who felt a moment’s doubt about the strategy will see why
many Londoners are concerned at the possibility that the Mayor will
say, “I believe that this massive building could be a weapon of
massive destruction to London’s skyline”, and then seek
to intervene on that basis. The Mayor may then change the planning
application in all sorts of ways.
For those people who are
inclined to believe that the Mayor will exercise his power with
restraint and discretion, the Mayor himself has lifted the skirt to
reveal the cloven hoof. He said of certain planning applications in
which he had an interest that he would have wished to take over had
such a power existed. For example, if we look at the development in
Commerce road in Hounslow, we see that the Mayor intervened using a
justification provided under the London plan. However, he intervened to
recommend that the development was changed to conform with his vision,
and in a way that would have taken it out of conformity with other
aspects of the London plan.
The Mayor
will use any opportunity or justification he can to express an opinion.
Once that justification has been accepted, he will allow his own vision
to take over. In that respect, the order laid before us by the
Government provides potentially limitless opportunities for the Mayor
to intervene. As hon. Members know, there are 180 different targets and
objectives in the London plan that planning applications are invited to
meet. It is almost impossible to conceive of a planning application
that would meet all 180 objectives perfectly. Therefore, the door is
open for mayoral intervention in many planning applications that, at
the moment, people would not consider to be genuinely
strategic.
On Second
Reading, the Minister said that the Mayor would only have the power to
intervene in those planning applications that go to the heart of the
London plan, but nowhere in the legislation, or in the orders that have
been laid before us, is there any effective guarantee of constraint on
the Mayor’s powers. More than that, the Bill contains a positive
incentive for the Mayor to intervene as often as he can get away with.
If the Mayor intervenes, he takes over control of the section 106
negotiations in a planning application. As we are all aware, section
106 applications are a vital part in securing consent for a planning
application.
Mr.
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): Does my hon.
Friend share my concerns that the large expansion of mayoral power and
ability to meddle will necessitate a significant increase in the
bureaucracy that works for the Mayor at city hall? It seems
inconceivable that the Mayor would be able to meddle to the degree that
we fear with his current staffing levels.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Mayor
has already been advertising for planners, lawyers and others to join
him, so that he can expand his writ in planning. The Mayor has made it
clear that he expects the growth of his planning and legal support
teams to increase year on year for the next two years. It is clear that
the Mayor is anticipating a power grab and, more than that, a money
grab. As my hon. Friend points out, the growth in staff will add
to the precept that all of us face as residents and council tax payers
in London. The other side of the money grab relates to the section 106
agreements.
We
recognise that there should be an offset for those who bear the
additional burdens that may come as a result of new residential and
commercial development. The section 106 negotiation is a way of
ensuring that the community that bears the cost of any planning change
gets the benefit as well. However, the Mayor will be able to take over
section 106 negotiations, which means that the money from the developer
that is associated with a planning application will pass through his
sticky fingers. That is a clear incentive and a sweetening of the
temptation for the Mayor to intervene and gives him a chance to take
over those applications, because it means his having more control over
resources and, potentially, having the power to shift those from areas
where he has directed that a planning development should take place to
where he may have another political interest. The Mayor can say,
“Okay, your borough happens to be run by a political party
opposite mine, so I will take over these planning applications, force
you to accept them, negotiate the section 106 agreements, then take the
cash and give it to my supporters somewhere else in the
capital.”
There can be no clearer risk of
inflaming public opinion, leading to even greater public resistance
towards development, than a regional figure compelling an area to
accept new development, then robbing it of one of its key benefits and
passing it on to another area. In that respect, the clauses will do
nothing to encourage support for new housing and development and may
imperil that support. It is important that we recognise that this
provision is analogous to one contained in the Government’s
plans for a planning gain supplement, which could also lead to people
accepting a development in one area and finding that some of the money
that they should get to mitigate its effects is being spent elsewhere.
Both these provisions—particularly the one relating to power
that the Mayor might have—will only increase hostility towards
housing
development.
Mr.
Slaughter:
That seems to be an argument against having a
Mayor or against having a Mayor with any strategic planning powers. If
that is the hon. Gentleman’s position, so be it. If it is not,
what powers does he think that the Mayor should have? The hon.
Gentleman’s speech sounds like a rant based on the parochial
interests of Tory boroughs or antipathy towards the current
Mayor.
Michael
Gove:
My point is not specifically about the Mayor,
although he has shown his desire to intervene in many more planning
applications than is currently the case. I am saying that there should
be an organic, democratic link between accepting development and
securing the benefits. That link is broken by the Bill and elsewhere by
the Government’s activities, as a result of which a future
Mayor, whatever his political complexion, may act in a cavalier,
high-handed manner towards those boroughs in which development is
taking
place.
Robert
Neill:
Is my hon. Friend aware that his argument is
reinforced—and that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and
Shepherd’s Bush, who
intervened on him, is undermined—by the results of the
Government’s consultation, which indicated that London boroughs
overwhelmingly opposed significant change to the planning powers, at a
time when the majority of those boroughs were Labour-controlled? The
majority of residents groups and individuals who responded to the
Government’s consultation opposed any significant change to
planning, arguing that the Mayor was too distant and remote to take
validly informed decisions on planning
issues.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Irrespective of
their political colouring, London boroughs have been deeply concerned
about this aspect of the Bill. One would expect boroughs with different
political leaderships to be more or less enthusiastic about the Mayor
acquiring new powers, but there has been a near-universal consensus on
the part of London councils that are concerned about what the clauses
under discussion would do for the integrity of the planning process and
for local democratic
accountability.
Mr.
Pelling:
I should like to mention the current incumbent in
the mayoralty. He would quite openly accept, would he not, that he is
in favour of redistribution of wealth? So he could quite rationally
argue that under the new planning powers he would like to transfer
moneys away from one part of London to another. Once again, the Greater
London authority would have greater powers to transfer moneys
away—particularly away from south
London.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, we
recognise that redistribution is intrinsic in the function of the
Treasury. It is something that central Government should do to help
alleviate poverty—both absolute and relative. But my hon. Friend
referred specifically to the Mayor of London. We all know what his or a
future Mayor’s agenda might be: it might be to punish local
areas that have had the temerity to elect a party of a different
colour.
We
know that this particular Mayor has a tendency to demonise some
boroughs and to cosset others. I shall not rehearse the arguments that
we heard earlier about the way in which he has shown his disdain for
some local authorities—whether the newly elected Conservative
administration in Hammersmith and Fulham, or the long-standing and
successful Conservative administration in
Bexley.
Michael
Gove:
Yes indeed. All we know is that the Mayor is
prepared to be personal, but we shall seek not to
be.
Martin
Linton:
Did 25 years of London without a strategic
authority not convince the hon. Gentleman that issues such as housing
can be dealt with only on a London-wide basis? If it is left entirely
to the boroughs to decide whether they should have affordable housing,
there will be parts of London that decide they do not want it. They
will have it if it is unaffordable affordable housing, but they do not
particularly want housing for
low-income families. That has been amply
demonstrated by Wandsworth, which for many years told developers not to
bother about affordable housing. Only when the Mayor took office did
they reluctantly accede to 25 per cent., and now they are being dragged
kicking and screaming up to 33 per cent. Essentially, however, it is a
borough that does not want to be forced to put in affordable housing
for low-income people. That demonstrates that we need a London-wide,
not borough-wide approach to the subject. of affordable
housing.
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is proof of
his passion and commitment to the cause of affordable housing, but as I
pointed out when he made a similar intervention earlier, we discussed
previously the pros and cons of a regional housing strategy for London,
and as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central pointed out,
Croydon is an example of a Conservative-led local authority that is
doing very well on sketching out and delivering on the need for
commitments to greater affordable housing. If the hon. Gentleman will
allow me, therefore, I shall move on, having accepted his passion for
pointing out contrary
examples.
A number of
developers are concerned—not just in relation to section 106 but
in a number of other areas—that the extension of the
Mayor’s planning powers to allow him to intervene will create
the potential, or indeed possibly a demand, for parallel negotiations.
Developers are concerned—but crucially the issue should also be
a matter of democratic concern. Under the proposals in the order that
accompanies this legislation, the borough is supposed to be the lead
authority that negotiates with a developer on particular planning
applications. Things are supposed to proceed sweetly. The Mayor has the
capacity to take the application over, however, if it conflicts with
any aspect of the London plan that he considers to be
significant—perhaps because it crosses the height
threshold.
11.30
am
A canny or
cynical developer might think, “Hmm, we can play the borough
along for a bit and get involved in negotiations with it in some
detail, but we really need to convince the Mayor. If we can convince
him strongly enough of the merits of our application, he will take it
over at the appropriate moment and we will have won.” There is a
significant incentive for developers to treat the borough as the poor
relation in the planning process. Genuine democratic control and
oversight of the planning process will move away from the borough,
which is supposed to be managing it, to the Mayor and his team, who
will be covertly taking over a planning application prior to overtly
saying that they wish, after eight weeks, to decide on its
merits.
Having said
that a canny or cynical developer might wish to do that, with the
precedent having been established in development circles, the danger
increases that the whole planning process will become not only less
democratic, but more expensive for the developer, as it maintains two
parallel sets of negotiations. One part of its team will be working
with the Mayor on what is really going to happen and another part will
be
working with the borough on what might happen. The other danger is that
the Mayor could be working on his pet scheme with the developer while
it is, at the same time, in negotiation with the
borough.
A
well-staffed borough with a planning committee that takes its
obligations seriously and planning officers that look closely at
applications may come up with a range of detailed improvements to a
plan. However, the developer does not necessarily need to take account
of those, because it knows that it will eventually get its way through
the Mayor. In that respect, the potential for parallel jurisdiction
works in nobody’s
interests.
Mr.
Pelling:
My hon. Friend mentions local boroughs being well
staffed by planners. Surely, one complication arising from these
additional powers is that there is already a substantial shortage of
planners, partly because of the creation of the GLA. My local authority
is a good 40 per cent. below the levels required. In terms of
accountability and parallel processes, does he agree that there are
complications for residents as well, in that the Mayor’s office
is clearly not capable of dealing with all the interests and concerns
expressed by residents? The Government propose an arm’s length
process under which local boroughs are responsible, rather oddly, for
communicating feedback on behalf of the Mayor in respect of any
application that he is considering. Surely, that is not
workable.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Mayor
is being given significant new powers under the Bill. However, the
Mayor as a planning authority is a curious creature, because as my hon.
Friend says, not only is he likely to be sucking up planning expertise
and taking individuals from already understaffed planning departments,
but the way in which he makes his decisions is different from any other
planning authority in the country. Most planning decisions are made by
committees and most committees are enjoined by statute to act in a
non-partisan, non-ideological, non-party political way. They act
quasi-judicially. Most planning authorities recognise and take
seriously their obligations and the need to take account of public
feeling. They make their decisions in public and often allow members of
the public to make
representations.
Stephen
Pound:
The hon. Gentleman is assuming a Jim Leighton role.
He is being unduly defensive. Having tried to demonise the Mayor as a
cloven-hoofed, sticky-fingered skirt-lifter, he now seems to imply that
every planning application in the city could, potentially, wash up on
the Mayor’s desk. The vast majority of planning applications in
this city, as in most other cities, are decided under delegated powers
by officers. We are talking about a tiny proportion of planning
applications—precisely, those that have a huge strategic
impact—that the Mayor will consider. The Mayor is not a
dictator, much as the hon. Gentleman may wish to characterise him as
such. There is a process of democratic accountability and let us not
forget that there is an effective London assembly as well—there
are some distinguished examples of it in this Committee
Room.
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman makes a number of very good
points. He refers to the distinguished goalkeeper, Jim Leighton, who
served Aberdeen. Leighton’s capacity to play a defensive role is
similar to that of my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, Central and
for Bromley and Chislehurst, both of whom are similarly remarkably
agile. They always have their eyes on the ball, and ensure that the
Conservatives do not score any own goals. More broadly, the hon. Member
for Ealing, North was making a material point about the number of
planning applications that are dealt with by planning officers using
delegated powers. Indeed when it comes to issues such as extensions,
windmills on roofs and all the sorts of things that we might want to do
to improve our own homes, the Mayor will not intervene.
In his Christmas letter, which
I have now had the opportunity to read, the hon. Member for Ealing,
Acton and Shepherd’s Bush did suggest that we Conservatives
would be seeking to argue that the Mayor would even be trying to
influence planning applications that related to garden sheds. May I now
place it on the record that we recognise that even if the Mayor was in
pursuit of a newt sanctuary, he would have no intention of interfering
in what happens in any of our garden sheds. None the less, the figures
show that the Mayor has become an increasingly active figure when it
comes to planning applications that fall between the truly strategic
and the truly intimate, personal and local.
In 2004-05, as I mentioned
earlier, the Mayor was involved in 291 applications. As I said, the
Mayor has also found a variety of reasons to become involved in a
growing number of planning applications, and there are 180 different
targets or requirements of the London plan, any of which—if the
development is not in conformity—might trigger the
Mayor’s interest and might provide him with an opportunity to
say that he wished to take the plan
over.
Mr.
Pelling:
My hon. Friend continues to speak about
the parallel process. Could not taking away the discretion and
initiative at a local borough level mean that many schemes end up not
being pursued? For a town such as Croydon, which has more than 350,000
people, regards itself as separate from London in some ways and has had
a long history of significant planning initiatives of its own, surely
the Bill offers the prospect of returning to the type of interference
and confusion that we saw when the Greater London council was in
existence?
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and if these
clauses were to pass intact and unamended, there would be concern not
only in town halls but among many London residents about the
consequences of a more interventionist planning regime from an
explicitly interventionist Mayor—this one or indeed any future
one. As I pointed out, the Mayor is a unique planning authority. He
does not meet in public in a collegiate fashion. He does not have the
opportunities of most local authority planning committees to hear
different voices, which can stress the pros and cons of any scheme. He
is a one-man planning authority.
Earlier, we
used the phrase “municipal Bonaparte”. It was very
striking that the Bagehot column in The Economist this week
picked up on that view and depicted the Mayor of London as a municipal
Bonaparte. One of the key ways in which he could become the Napoleon
not just of Notting Hill but of every borough in London is the way in
which he seeks to exercise his planning powers on his own. How does the
Mayor take a planning decision? We know that he will have lawyers and
planning officers who can help him come to a view, but when that
decision is taken, it is not taken in a formal way with the Mayor
explaining in public to those most affected why he has come to that
decision. He can make that decision in the bath. He can make it while
he is shaving, in the stands at Craven Cottage or anywhere he likes and
then deliver himself of that judgment by posting up on the internet
what view he has reached. The order laid before us by the Minister and
the Secretary of State mercifully creates provision for the Mayor to
enable public involvement in such decisions. It is the Mayor who
decides so, if he wishes to under certain circumstances, he can say,
“Oyez, I am prepared to make the decision public.”
Ultimately, however, the power to make those decisions will remain with
the Mayor. The degree of additional accountability that the order
envisages is
timing.
Robert
Neill:
Is my hon. Friend aware that his argument is
greatly reinforced by the knowledge that the Mayor’s exercise of
his current powers has been criticised by the assembly on a cross-party
basis since the GLA was created? All parties on the assembly, including
that of the Government, signed up to that criticism in the assembly
scrutiny report “Behind Closed Doors”. The Mayor himself
withdrew the facility that he had initially granted to assembly members
to scrutinise and pass comment on planning applications coming to him
in advance of his decision on the ostensible grounds that there was not
enough officer time to permit it. He actually closed the door even more
and reduced the ability of the goalkeepers to deflect the occasional
dubious
shot.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. When the
Mayor took office, he promised some of the most open and inclusive
governance anywhere in the United Kingdom, yet as my hon. Friend said,
when the GLA planning committee asked for a limited say and a role in
the exercise of the Mayor’s planning powers, which was only
right, it was told in no uncertain terms where to leave its request. It
was downgraded from a planning committee to a planning advisory
committee. Before we vote on the clauses, I recommend all members of
the Committee to pay close attention to the assembly’s report
“Behind Closed Doors”, which paints a damning picture of
the Mayor’s high-handedness when it comes to the exercise of his
planning powers. That does not give us any reason to believe
confidently that he will exercise limited capacity to meet in public to
bolster public
confidence.
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): May I invite the
hon. Gentleman to speculate on what a Mayor who is a one-man planning
authority might do about a planning application in which he has a
personal financial interest?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. While there
is absolutely no reason to believe that the current incumbent is
anything other than a man of spotless integrity, it is the case that he
has in the past met developers before deciding subsequently on
applications in which they had an interest. The Mayor has acted in a
way whereby, if he were a local councillor, almost any other local
authority in the country would see him up before the Standards Board
before we could say “strategic
development”.
The
reason why Opposition parties are so worried about the exercise of the
Mayor’s planning powers is again the potential for a future
Mayor to act in a way that would not be in the best interests of the
city or of open government. The fact that the Mayor can meet
developers, listen to them and possibly enjoy their badinage over lunch
and then go off and come up with a conclusion on a planning application
in which they have a direct interest runs against the spirit of how
planning operates throughout the country. There are good reasons why
members of planning committees have to exercise a degree of care about
whom they meet and what they say before they make a
judgment.
Conservative
Members have had worries about the Standards Board regime and now is
not the moment to rehearse them. All that I would say is that I cannot
see a safeguard in the Bill that would prevent the Mayor or future
Mayor from spending great time and energy with developers in private
before deciding subsequently on an application in which he had an
interest.
One
of the Conservative amendments would provide greater public scrutiny of
the Mayor’s exercise of his planning powers. I hope that Labour
Members, whatever they think of the current Mayor, recognise the
potential for abuse of the clause’s powers, and that they will
look favourably on that
amendment.
11.45
am
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): Is it not key for Members to try to
depersonalise the matter and to accept the general principle that
openness and accountability, particularly in planning where money can
be involved, is essential for public confidence? Would it not be
helpful for all Committee members to imagine the worst possible
candidate for London
Mayor—
Norman
Baker:
Perhaps so—and to ask whether they would be
happy for that individual to hold the powers in the
Bill.
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, because
he underlines our concerns. Whatever one might think about the current
incumbent and his ideology, and however welcome his commitment to
increasing affordable housing might be, we must bear in mind the
broader point that current planning law takes full account of the
potential for corruption and abuse of power in the planning process. As
the Minister pointed out during debate on the planning gain supplement
last night, a stroke of the pen can transform the value of a piece of
land tenfold or more as a result of a planning decision. Access to
planning powers unlocks the door to wealth. For that reason, I agree
absolutely that all of us should contemplate the powers in the hands of
one individual in office who might be the worst possible person to
exercise those
powers.
Yvette
Cooper:
Does the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety apply
similarly to Secretaries of State, who equally take decisions on appeal
cases and call-ins? They are bound exactly as the Mayor will
be—not simply by the broad framework of planning legislation but
by propriety guidance and, perhaps most importantly, safeguards in
common law, which have been in place for a very long
time.
Michael
Gove:
The Minister makes an interesting point about
Secretaries of State. Before the creation of the Department for
Communities and Local Government, when we still had the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, a number of concerns were raised about how the
Deputy Prime Minister spent a great deal of time in the United States
of America negotiating with an individual who had a material interest
in a significant—and, I acknowledge,
strategic—development in London.
Michael
Gove:
I will in a moment. The great deal of parliamentary
scrutiny that the Deputy Prime Minister came under only underlines our
concerns about the importance of ensuring that the Bill contains every
safeguard
possible.
Yvette
Cooper:
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware—I hope
that he is not suggesting otherwise—all those safeguards
operated in that case, which is why the Deputy Prime Minister did not
take those planning decisions. He made it clear at every stage that he
has never done so. Considerable safeguards are in place, including
those in the common law, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not
implying
otherwise.
Michael
Gove:
The Minister springs chivalrously to the Deputy
Prime Minister’s defence. I say only that if one moves from the
specific to the general, one recognises in giving the Mayor such powers
the potential for an exercise of those powers that is not necessarily
in the best interests of the public or open government. At the moment
we have a system in which, because planning applications are decided in
boroughs by planning committees, a greater degree of transparency
exists.
One of the
other areas of complexity that could be introduced in relation to the
Secretary of State’s call-in power is that, as Kate Barker
pointed out, the Secretary of State probably exercises his or her
call-in power too promiscuously when it comes to ensuring that the
planning system operates as effectively as possible. Kate Barker
referred to something that she called planning by appeal—the way
that developers sometimes play fast and loose with the local authority
because they are confident that on appeal, a planning inspector or
indeed the Secretary of State will decide in their favour. It is our
concern that that problem could happen on a London level, and that
we will, in effect, have developers who play fast and loose with local
boroughs because they want the Mayor to decide. The fact that the
Secretary of State will still have a call-in power makes things more
complicated. We have a potential situation in which a developer feels
that it can negotiate successfully with the Mayor, and there is then an
application to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her call-in
powers. In such a situation, a development is made yet more
bureaucratic and complicated.
Yvette
Cooper:
As I understand the hon. Gentleman’s
position, his party supports the role of Secretaries of State in
decision making on appeals and call-ins. I have heard Conservative
Front Benchers articulate that position. Will he clarify whether the
position has changed?
Michael
Gove:
I absolutely support the role of Secretaries of
State, and nothing I said would suggest that I want to change that
position. The point that I am making is that the powers are significant
and serious. Kate Barker has argued that in the interests of speeding
up the planning process, the powers should be exercised less often and
that we should recognise that they should be used sparingly. The
Conservatives agree with that position. A concern that we have about
the Bill is that such significant powers are likely to be exercised in
an analogous fashion by the Mayor. Given what the Mayor has said, and
the increasing number of planning applications in which he has become
involved, there is a danger that he may exercise the powers much more
promiscuously than any of us would want.
Stephen
Pound:
The hon. Gentleman is almost entering the Doug
Rougvie phase of his defence in which he tends to play the man rather
than the ball. He is almost becoming a John McMaster in that
respect.
May I urge
the hon. Gentleman against over-egging the rather elegant confection
that he is creating for the Committee by bringing in extraneous matters
such as visits made to the United States by the Deputy Prime Minister?
Those comments were not a means of discussing the issues of the day. He
is making a powerful point, but he demeans it by over-personalising
matters. I mean that not as a criticism, but as a friendly, helpful
comment.
The
Chairman:
Before you reply, Mr. Gove, may I say
that as the referee of the Committee, I will produce a yellow card if
there are too many long-winded interventions in the
future.
The hon.
Gentleman made an entirely fair point. To underline it, and for the
reassurance of the Minister, I had no desire to cast aspersions on the
Deputy Prime Minister. I wished to point it out merely because it is
the most current and contemporary example of
controversy arising from the exercise of planning powers. How much more
controversial could the exercise of the powers be in the hands of
someone less scrupulous and respected than the Deputy Prime
Minister?
I shall
make one final point. The Government use the need for greater
efficiency as one of their principal justifications for the extension
of planning powers. We are led to believe that it is by giving the
Mayor the planning powers that the planning system in London will
become more efficient. The Government have to acknowledge that when
real efficiency and speed is required in planning, the Mayor’s
hand is nowhere to be seen. Why is it that the Olympic delivery
authority and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation are
exempted from the Mayor’s powers? Is it because the Government
implicitly recognise—interestingly—that there may be a
conflict between the speed and efficiency that those major areas of
development require, and the unnecessarily bureaucratic and Byzantine
structure set up for the exercise of the Mayor’s powers? It is
for all those reasons that we believe that the clauses should be
removed from the Bill.
I ask Labour
Members to reflect on what their own local authorities have said about
the Mayor’s exercising of his powers, and on what they know of
their own Labour local authority colleagues. Is it right that the voice
of those people elected by, and intimately aware of the concerns of,
their communities, and who are knowledgeable about the impact of
planning applications on the balance of work and other community needs,
be muted, while the voice of the Mayor is amplified? Is it right that
he should have the opportunity to intervene when the London plan gives
him such extensive freedom to intervene? Is it right that he should be
able to intervene on one basis, such as the height of a building, and
then use that justification to meddle in every other aspect of a
development? Is it right that he should exercise his powers sitting
alone, many of them in private and effectively unscrutinised? Is it
right that we should be setting up a process that encourages developers
to negotiate in parallel, downgrading the role of boroughs and
increasing the potential for covert deals that work in no one’s
interest? It is for all those reasons that we should consider striking
out this element of the Bill. We can then proceed quickly to give a
fair reading to the attractive parts of the Bill so that it can pass to
Royal Assent.
Tom
Brake:
I support much of what has been said by the
official Opposition spokesman and the deletion of clauses 31 to 35. It
is worth considering the backdrop to this debate on planning by looking
at the findings of a survey in September 2006 in which 1,000 Londoners
were asked about the proposed additional powers for the London
Mayor.
In that
survey, 54 per cent. of Londoners opposed plans to award the Mayor
extra powers to decide planning applications across the capital. Only
27 per cent., just over one in four, supported proposals to award the
Mayor further powers over planning. An overwhelming three out of four
Londoners named their local council as being the most appropriate body
to have planning powers in their area.
I know that the Mayor has
responded with his own opinion poll. In my personal experience of
constituents’ views, the role of local authorities in planning
is not greatly appreciated, but the role of the Mayor is even less
appreciated. The best example of that is a development of a strategic
nature, Durand close, that I have previously referred to and which the
Mayor called in but then proceeded to raise issues of a non-strategic
nature.
As part of
the backdrop, it is also worth providing the statistics to which the
hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred, on the number of plans with
which the Mayor has been involved since the introduction of the Town
and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, under which 291
applications have been classified as strategic and referred to him for
comment. Interestingly, he has directly refused an application on only
four occasions, a number that most people would feel is acceptable.
However, the concerns must be that these changes will significantly
increase the volume of applications that the Mayor will look into, in a
way that will go against the grain of what local people want to see
happen.
12
noon
I now want to
look briefly at the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order
2007. I know that it is going to be the subject of consultation and
hope that the Minister will set out the form of that consultation.
However, the order goes to the heart of what we are discussing today
and the matter of what is and is not an application of potential
strategic
importance.
I have
considered the order carefully and a number of significant questions
leap out of it. First, the heart of it is in article 7, which considers
the Mayor’s power to direct refusal or permission, and, in
particular, article 7(1)(a), which uses the
words
“contrary to the
spatial development strategy or prejudicial to its
implementation”.
I hope
that the Minister will explain what “prejudicial” means.
Does it mean greatly or just slightly prejudicial? If she says that
that matter will be resolved in the courts, that will be regrettable.
We need much more precision from her on that
point.
Yvette
Cooper:
I would like to clarify something, before the hon.
Gentleman develops his important and interesting remarks. Article 7
deals with the power to direct refusal of permission. The Mayor already
has that power. Article 8 applies to the new powers that he will be
given under the
Bill.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the Minister for that clarification. None
the less, I hope that she will clarify the point
further.
There are
some definitions in article 8 that the Minister could helpfully
clarify. In article 8(1), for example, the term “significant
impact” is used, and I hope that she expands on what constitutes
a “significant impact”.
Article 8(3)
says:
“In
deciding whether to give a direction the Mayor must take account of the
extent to which the council of the London Borough is achieving, and has
achieved, the relevant targets set out in the spatial development
strategy.”
There is
potential for that to be used as a big stick to beat a borough around
the head if the Mayor believes that it is not complying with all
relevant targets. I hope that the Minister will expand on what
restrictions might apply to that
article.
There is some
satisfaction in that the Minister has introduced article 10 on
determining an application. However, I hope that she will clarify the
extent to which there has to be consultation, how far local residents
and other objectors will be involved in the process, how the matter is
to be addressed and what record will be made of that
process.
London
Councils is particularly concerned about schedule 3(b) to the order,
under which an application might be deemed strategic if other planning
permissions had been granted in the vicinity in the previous five
years. That could open up a huge number of planning applications that
would not previously have been covered by the Mayor’s remit. I
hope that the Minister will tell the Committee what assessment the
Government have made of the impact of the schedule on the expansion
that might be expected in the number of applications that the Mayor
will consider.
The
Committee should consider an interesting
classification:
“Development
to provide a large or regional
casino”,
which falls
under category 1E of the order. That seems to be considered a strategic
development, which is a departure from the nature of planning relating
to all the other categories set out in the document. Does the Minister
concur? Is it correct that the order, which focuses on the planning
issue, appears to include a provision relating to a casino application,
which seems to be outside the remit of every other category in the list
provided?
There are
other references in part 3 to phrases that require clarification. For
example, it is not clear whether “prejudice” means a lot
of prejudice, although the scale of intervention under category 3
development will allow the Mayor much greater intervention than is
appropriate or acceptable. Bearing it in mind that local authorities
will still have to be in general conformity with the London plan,
category 3 sets out when intervention will be
possible.
Category 3A
and part 3 are about developments that affect strategic policies, but,
interestingly, the loss of housing has been singled out as opposed to
the loss of employment, for example. Can the Minister clarify the
thinking behind that? The 2007 order, on which she will be consulting,
requires significant clarification, and I hope that she will use this
opportunity to respond to the points that I have
made.
Broadly
speaking, Liberal Democrat Members see eye to eye with London Councils
on its position on the planning powers that the Mayor will be granted.
His decision-making process should be much more transparent, as
transparent as the activities of the borough planning
committees—a matter to which we shall return in our debate on
amendment No. 52 under clause 31.
Any transfer of powers to the
Mayor should not involve making the planning system more complex or the
introduction of additional delays. The worry is that that will clearly
be the case. The number of cases that the Mayor intervenes on should be
minimised, but nothing in the order suggests that that will happen. On
the contrary, the scope for the Mayor intervening has been widened
significantly.
There
should be an acid test of whether the Mayor’s approach is right
and whether his intervention is reasonable and necessary to ensure the
delivery of the London plan. Liberal Democrat Members believe in the
strategic nature of the authority, as well as the right to put forward
the London plan, the housing plan and the spatial development plan, but
we believe that the basic test of whether it is reasonable for the
Mayor to intervene to ensure delivery of the London plan is
required.
The hon.
Member for Surrey Heath referred to worries about section 106. The
current or future Mayor should not be allowed to use his powers to take
over an application simply if there is a minor difference with the
local authority because he wants to access the funds that are available
under section 106.
To
conclude—
Mr.
Slaughter:
I hear the word “conclude”. Is
the hon. Gentleman about to mention affordable housing—a topic
that, to be fair to him, was referred to by the hon. Member for Surrey
Heath? It is a priority for the Mayor and central to such powers.
However, once again the Liberal Democrats have not mentioned it. Will
the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington tell the Committee
whether he, Liberal Democrat councillors and the Liberal Democrat party
support the Mayor’s target on affordable housing? If so, will he
condemn the London borough of Islington, which is achieving 20 per
cent. affordable housing when its target is 50 per
cent?
Tom
Brake:
I am happy to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s
intervention, although we had a debate on housing last week. As for
whether the Liberal Democrats support the Mayor’s affordable
housing target, I must say that we do. As for whether each borough
delivers precisely the Mayor’s target, we need to allow boroughs
flexibility in delivering the Mayor’s targets, but I am of the
view that Liberal Democrat boroughs should seek to hit them.
Unfortunately, in the London borough of Sutton, where the local
authority has taken an active role in ensuring that substandard housing
was replaced by good-quality new affordable housing, the Mayor’s
intervention delayed the project by 10 months, rather than assisting
the process.
Yes, we
support the basic principle, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is
prone to citing individual local authorities in his interventions. I am
not convinced that that is terribly helpful, as each of us could
produce our own list of local authorities, of all political
complexions, that we felt were not delivering. When I moved to London
in the early 1980s, I lived in Islington—then the socialist
republic of Islington—and I am sure that the Liberal Democrat
local authority is doing a much better job than was being done
then.
To conclude,
we should ensure that the Mayor focuses on strategic issues when he
intervenes; he should not be permitted to comment on non-strategic
matters as happens now. Nothing in the provision will stop the Mayor
doing that. On the contrary, his non-strategic interventions will
escalate. It is disproportionate and unjustified to give him the
discretion to take over a potentially larger number of planning
applications.
Interestingly,
London Councils says that the Mayor has not been able to prove that
important strategic applications are frequently hindered by local
authorities. The councils are concerned that if the Government proceed
with the draft order it will enable the Mayor to take over a larger
number of applications than is appropriate, and I support them in that
view—particularly, as I mentioned earlier, in relation to the
potentially massive expansion in the number of applications in which he
might intervene that could result from the proposal that planning
applications within a given area in the previous five years must be
taken into account.
I
hope that the Minister responds to those specific points on the draft
Mayor of London order. I shall listen carefully to her response, but
the tenor of the order suggests that the concerns that we expressed on
Second Reading about planning have not been addressed and that it will
require a significant U-turn by the Minister to satisfy
us.
Mr.
Hands:
I intend to be fairly brief, not least because my
hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath spoke eloquently and extremely
effectively—with supportive comments from the Liberal
Democrats—to the Opposition amendments, which go to the heart of
the Bill. First, however, I wish to raise a couple of points.
First, the my hon. Friend the
Member for Ealing, North suggested that only a few applications will be
called in. I am reasonably sure that he is right, but the problem is
that the Bill gives the ability to call in a great number of
applications. The Mayor may not call in or take over most of those. As
a former councillor, I received every week a list of the planning
applications that had been submitted to the borough. They included
almost everything from new lamp posts and illuminated advertising all
the way up to developments of 2,000
homes.
It is
inconceivable that either the current or a future Mayor will start
calling in large numbers of such applications, but it is a significant
worry that he will be able to do so. For every development of 500
homes, there will probably be 500 loft extensions. However, we fear
that he will call in the 500-home developments and other larger
applications with some
regularity.
12.15
pm
Stephen
Pound:
Further to the hon. Gentleman’s point, the
difficulty is that if we constantly get into hypothetical situations,
we might find ourselves in the same position as, say, Alex McLeish in
1982, who never thought that one day he would become Scotland manager.
We cannot predicate an analysis on the basis of what might be. Does the
hon. Gentleman at least accept that if a planning application is of
such significance that it affects adjoining boroughs, a strategic
mechanism will be required? That is the nature of a very crowded
city.
Mr.
Hands:
There is some truth in that, but for large
developments close to borough boundaries, existing powers provide for
consultation with neighbouring and nearby boroughs. In the wrong hands,
I fear that the proposal will give rise to a meddler’s charter.
As we have seen in recent years with existing powers, some of the
Mayor’s interventions on local councils will be highly
selective, media-driven and politically
motivated.
I shall
return to the point about a worst case scenario raised by the hon.
Member for Lewes, which involves cases under a different type of Mayor.
I ask Labour Members to imagine a Mayor who pledges to deliver no
affordable housing in London, who is given those powers to meddle and
intervene in the 32 boroughs and who takes over developments and
directs that no affordable housing shall be built. If that Mayor were
close to a developer or set of developers, the accusation would arise
that they were influenced by a developer seeking to maximise their
profit by not delivering affordable housing. The hon. Member for
Ealing, North might think that that is a hypothetical scenario, which
it probably is—it probably will not happen—but we must
look beyond the current personality and consider what could happen
under a different
Mayor.
Ms
Dawn Butler (Brent, South) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman
think that if a Mayor failed to deliver any affordable housing in
London, they would be democratically re-elected at the next
election?
Mr.
Hands:
The hon. Lady is probably right, but housing policy
will not necessarily be the principal factor in determining the course
of the London mayoral election, which is held every four years. The
principal factor might be the condition of the tube, public transport,
the buses, crime and so on. We have had two such elections, and
affordable housing and housing and planning policy were probably not in
the top five factors in determining the
result.
Norman
Baker:
Briefly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in a
mature democracy democratic accountability should run parallel with the
decision-making process, rather than its being exercised every four
years?
Mr.
Hands:
That is a helpful intervention. I shall come on to
the importance of planning, which works differently from the normal
democratic process.
I
shall talk about the impact of planning and the overall development
process in this country. The Government proposals threaten and
jeopardise some of the central tenets of the planning system. We all
know that that system is not perfect—now is not the right time
to talk about its pros and cons—but it needs to be consistent
across the country, yet the proposals seek radical changes in the
metropolis of
London.
There
is an appropriate division between executive power on regeneration and
development and the necessarily judicial or quasi-judicial power for
determining individual planning applications. Generally, local
authorities in Britain have somebody, such as a cabinet member, on the
executive responsible for the overall development picture—a
cabinet member for regeneration and
development, perhaps. At the same time, every council has a planning
committee, which operates in a quasi-judicial capacity, and it is
important that those two processes are separate. A decision was
recently made on Hammersmith and Fulham council deliberately to remove
the cabinet member for regeneration from the 12 members of the planning
committee, specifically for that reason. Unfortunately, the Bill
proposes combining the two roles and creating a position for somebody
to be in charge of the regeneration of the capital while also taking on
a far bigger role in determining planning applications than in the past
six years, which is fundamentally dangerous. Not only that, but, as we
heard from hon. Members earlier, such determinations will not
necessarily be made in public and will not necessarily need to respond
to applicants, local planning authorities or the
public.
I was
interested in a submission to the Committee by the Mayor, who talked at
some length about wanting to increase transparency, saying, “The
Mayor has agreed to publish the reports on applications that are taken
over in advance of when he hears representations and makes his
decision, and to publish the reasons for his decision. The Mayor is
also content for the meeting at which he hears representations to be
open to the public and broadcast over the internet. He is also happy to
take his decisions on any applications he has taken over in
public.” I do not think that the Mayor has given a firm
commitment to have the same open, transparent process as local
authorities on planning
procedures.
The fatal
flaw in the Mayor’s submission, which has already been
mentioned, is that he fails to understand the planning process in this
country and the quasi-judicial nature of decisions, saying,
“Under the proposed changes, planning in London will continue to
be accountable, as the Mayor is ultimately accountable through the
ballot
box.”
Imagine
again the worst-case scenario of a Mayor who does not believe in any
affordable housing. The Mayor meets developers in private, possibly
while on holiday in Cannes, and says, “Well actually,
I’ve made my decision—like it or lump it. You can always
get rid of me in three and three-quarter years’ time at the next
mayoral
election”.
Mr.
Slaughter:
Given the hon. Gentleman’s concern for
the probity of the planning process, does he think it appropriate for
the chairman of a planning committee to meet a developer immediately
before a major development comes before that committee to insist on
significant changes to an
application?
Mr.
Hands:
I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring, yet
again, to the Prestolite site, although far be it for me to extend
discussion about that case, which seems to have dominated our
proceedings in recent days. I am not aware of the allegation that the
hon. Gentleman is making, but if he wants to make it, I suggest that he
put it in writing and I shall consider
it.
The changes are
ill conceived and ill thought through. They are a knee-jerk response to
a perceived political need to give the Mayor of London more powers.
They will fundamentally change many of the ways in which planning
operates in the capital, which will inevitably affect how planning is
viewed in this
country. It is dangerous to combine the regeneration
role with the inevitable role that local authorities can and must play
in determining appeals and making determinations on individual planning
applications in public. For that reason, clause 30 should not stand
part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I shall also try to be brief. I rise only to
comment on the long contribution by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.
He is not here at the moment, so I hope that I shall not misinterpret
anything that he said. He took a curious approach to the provisions.
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has returned, so I hope that
he will not mind my saying that he set out to spook the Committee in
his contribution to frighten it into believing that the powers that the
Mayor will inherit will result in some terrible wrong. I believe that
he is wrong. I do not know whether it is just his new oratorical
style—a gothic style—that he has introduced in Committee.
Perhaps matters of housing, and particularly London housing, are
getting the hon. Gentleman down and are a little too dry for his
palate.
I
should like to open a cellar door and spread some light into the rather
gloomy world that the hon. Gentleman has created of a Mayor who will
interfere aggressively in many applications, who will misappropriate
funds under section 106 agreements, who will take all his decisions
while cloistered and hidden away, whether in Cannes, in the bath or
wherever, and who will impose iron, unachievable targets on the poor
borough councils by way of affordable housing and other matters. I have
looked as closely as I can at the Bill and the regulations, and I
cannot see any of that. What I see in the Bill is a modification of the
strategic powers of the Mayor in an appropriate fashion and, in
particular, to help to achieve important London targets in the area of
affordable
housing.
The hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington gave the game away. Fewer than 300
applications have been referred to the Mayor, and in only four cases
has an intervention been necessary. The hon. Gentleman foresaw a
possibly significant increase to perhaps five or even six such cases
under these powers. Surely, if there is any strategic role for
strategic authority, the powers set out in the Bill do not go beyond
that. It is disingenuous of the boroughs and, indeed, some Opposition
politicians to try to spook local residents’ groups and others
involved in the planning process by saying that what will happen is a
sea
change.
I
say the same in relation to section 106 agreements. On determining
applications or section 106 agreements, the key point, even where the
Mayor has intervened, is collaboration with the boroughs, adherence to
local plans as well as strategic plans and taking the boroughs along
with him on section 106
agreements.
The
hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham has referred to the
decision-making process. It seems to me, looking at what the Mayor has
said and what the regulations say about that, that it is just as
consultative and democratic as any process that the boroughs undertake.
Indeed, a number of boroughs—I mention Wandsworth, Westminster
and Hammersmith and Fulham—do not allow the public to make
representations at their planning committees. The Mayor’s
intention in publishing and consulting on his proposals probably goes
further than many of the boroughs in that
respect.
Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): I am listening to the hon.
Gentleman with considerable interest, and I am particularly interested
in his argument that section 106 agreements are democratically
accountable locally. I do not have the record in front of me. Did he
therefore vote against the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill
last night—a Government Bill that would take that power away
from local
authorities?
Mr.
Slaughter:
I will have to check Hansard, but I have
a feeling that I voted with the Government. I am so pleased to hear
Conservative Members being so keen on section 106 agreements and on
getting additional resources from major planning decisions into local
communities, which is an extraordinary sea change. The last time that
the Conservatives lost power in Hammersmith and Fulham, they did so
with a huge bang in which they granted several billion pounds of
planning applications on one day, a week before they lost power, with
virtually no section 52, as I believe it was, agreements attached to
them. I think that with Chelsea harbour, a not inconsequential
development on the riverside, a footpath was the planning gain. It is
therefore good to see that Conservative Members keen on planning gain.
I wish they had supported the Bill last night and would support these
powers, because these powers can only assist local communities in
getting proper additional community facilities in their
area.
Finally, I said
that I would not be
long.
12.30
pm
Tom
Brake:
I hear the word “finally”. The hon.
Gentleman said that the spokesman for the official Opposition has
sought to spook hon. Members and that he does not recognise Opposition
Members’ concerns in relation to planning changes. He may be
able to dismiss our views, but what are the views of Labour authorities
and councillors in London on the shift of planning powers from them to
the
Mayor?
Mr.
Slaughter:
There are not many around me at the moment, so
I would have to go some distance to find that out. There is survey
evidence of Londoners undertaken by the Mayor, but I know from the hon.
Gentleman’s comments that he prefers anecdotal banana stall
evidence from his
constituents.
Tom
Brake:
There are relatively few banana stalls in my
constituency, but what I was referring to was the survey carried out by
London councils that interviewed 1,000
people.
Mr.
Slaughter:
Questions can always be asked in a particular
way, but I tend to prefer the questions and evidence from the GLA,
which was the Mayor’s survey on those matters. That showed that
an overwhelming majority of Londoners supported the need for the
Mayor’s affordable housing target and that a clear majority
supported his intervention, particularly when it was necessary to
ensure that those targets were achieved.
My “and finally”,
unlike that of the hon. Gentleman, will include a reference to
affordable housing because that is a key issue for London. I will
not repeat the comments I made in Committee last week, but locally I
have a situation where the chairman of the planning committee believes
that housing in an area that has the fourth highest property prices in
the country is skewed towards the poor. The leader of the council is
aiming to build property for people on incomes of up to £60,000,
but he has miscalculated because, on the basis of the housing he
intends to build. it will be £80,000 plus at the top of the
range.
There is a
complete abdication of responsibility by some borough councils. They
are not tackling a clear statutory responsibility, which those who
elected them wish to see carried out. That goes to the heart not just
of discharging statutory duties, but of good governance in a local
area. Where there is a failure to achieve affordable housing and an
abdication of responsibility by local councils, it is often on a
nimbyist and parochial basis. Surely, we have reached the point where
we need some strategic direction on precisely that
issue.
Michael
Gove:
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s
appeal that strategic powers be exercised. In his own constituency on
the Goldhawk road he will be aware of the Allied Carpets planning
proposal. Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is Labour controlled,
rejected that planning application because aspects of it were not in
conformity with its local development plan. However, the Mayor
suggested that the application should be agreed. Presumably, the hon.
Gentleman agrees with the Mayor and thinks that the statutory powers
should have been in existence to enable the Mayor to direct the local
authority to approve the Allied Carpets scheme on Goldhawk
road.
Mr.
Slaughter:
If the Prestolite scheme, which is at least as
major a development, has received too much attention, the Allied
Carpets scheme, which is a small development, should receive as much
attention. Hon. Members who do not live on the Goldhawk road—I
know that is a minority in the Committee—may begin to get bored.
I am not sure what more I can say on that issue. I spoke about the
Allied Carpets development at length on Second Reading and in Committee
last week. I have given my view very clearly on the matter. It is a
small government
issue.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I do. The Mayor intervened because he believed,
wrongly in my view, that a building of merit would be put on the site.
It may well be a building of merit, but not on that site. The Mayor did
not pursue the point. As I have said, he believed that it was a
sensible development for the site, but he did not appear at the public
inquiry and the matter was not pursued. It is a red
herring.
In the
Mayor’s polls, and in the London councils poll as well, which is
rather more self-serving, Londoners take a clear view that strategic
powers are needed, particularly in housing. However, I suspect that
more Committee members than care to say so share a
common-sense view that major developments—for example, the White
City opportunity area in my constituency—should have a regional
and strategic role. I wish that rather than being in thrall to a
political mantra, whether it is supporting Conservative boroughs or
opposing a Labour Mayor, Opposition Members would articulate that a
little more clearly.
I was pleased to hear what
Liberal Democrats said about supporting the Mayor’s housing
targets, but the fact remains that Conservative and Liberal Democrat
boroughs particularly, although not exclusively, are not meeting those
targets and have no incentive to do so. If London is to be properly
planned with proper accommodation for all its citizens and not only
those on incomes of £60,000 or £80,000 a year, the powers
are
necessary.
Robert
Neill:
One thing has been established absolutely beyond
question in our debate so far. We all know now what the hon. Member for
Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush would choose as his specialist
subject if he ever went on “Mastermind”. I do not intend
to go into quite the same detail on the history of the London borough
where I once served, but I will bear it in mind in commenting on the
Bill’s planning
package.
My comments
have two parts. First, there is the question of the Mayor’s
strategic role. I do not have a problem with the Mayor having a
strategic role, but the point is that nothing that we have seen so
far—neither the proposed primary legislation nor the draft
order—has defined “strategic”. That concerns
us.
There
is also an important philosophic point that the Government’s
proposals seem to breach. When the Greater London authority was
created, it was argued in its favour that there would be a distinction
between the Mayor as a driver of strategy and the delivery of service.
What we are seeing in housing and planning is the Mayor moving, albeit
in certain circumscribed areas, into service delivery. That is a change
in philosophy and in tack, and the histories of the old Greater London
council and London county council demonstrate that there is a risk of
conflict with the boroughs if it is not handled properly. One of the
reasons why a number of the Labour London boroughs did not weep as much
as Ken Livingstone would have liked over abolition in 1985 was the
long-running conflict under administrations of all parties between the
boroughs and County hall, involving rather more limited planning powers
than are proposed here.
It would be
undesirable not to learn the lessons of history and to repeat that
mistake. That can be avoided by keeping the Mayor to broad-brush
strategy—by keeping him away from detailed target setting, which
failed on the national stage, leaving the broad issues to the
Mayor’s strategies and letting the boroughs deal with delivery.
That is not only important for basic philosophy and accountability; it
is important to public confidence. I think that we would all agree that
there is no area in which it is more important and perhaps more
sensitive to maintain public confidence than in planning. My experience
as a member of a planning committee of a London borough council
reinforces
that.
For
all the reasons that have been rehearsed, the measures run the
risk—inadvertently, perhaps—of
undermining public confidence. First, they run that risk because they
undermine transparency, and secondly, they reduce accountability
because a number of significant decisions may be taken at a more remote
level. London is sometimes regarded as a tight geographic unit,
particularly by those outside. In fact, it is usually diverse. As well
as being a great city, London is also a collection of villages and
communities.
For
people in outer London, there are substantial geographic units. People
who live in Orpington regard Bromley council as a pretty large unit,
and their community is a smaller unit than that. They can live with the
idea that Bromley council takes their planning decisions because they
send their representatives to it. However, to have a significant number
of decisions taken even further away will undermine their confidence
that the system works for them and listens to them. That is an
important point that is
missed.
Ms
Buck:
Is not the point of the whole debate that
there will be instances—not many, but some—in which it is
entirely reasonable for a local community to have concerns about a
planning decision, for or against, but where their local interests
conflict with the strategic interests of Londoners as a whole? There
are occasions when their local interests have to be overruled in the
strategic interests of the city and it is right that the Mayor should
have that power. Therefore, however powerfully the hon. Gentleman makes
his argument, I am not sure that he actually deals with the central
issue.
Robert
Neill:
With respect, my argument deals with that
point. On those rare occasions—there should be every endeavour
to ensure that they are rare—people will accept their interests
being overridden only if there is the maximum transparency and they
have the maximum assurance that they have had a fair crack of the whip,
to use a colloquial phrase. My concerns are related to the definition
of “strategic”, which is potentially too wide and will
therefore be used in too many such cases, and to the procedure by which
it is done. People will not have confidence that they have had a fair
crack of the whip before that hard decision is
taken.
Norman
Baker:
Speaking as a Member of Parliament
who does not represent a London area, I wonder whether the hon.
Gentleman can help me. As I understand it, the argument is that the
powers will be exercised rarely on a strategic basis, and strategic was
the word that was used. None the less, we have heard the Mayor
apparently commenting on the Goldhawk road, with which I am not
familiar, and Allied Carpets. We were told by the hon. Member for
Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush that it was a very small matter.
Therefore, the Mayor appears to be ready to intervene on small matters
already.
Robert
Neill:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he
helpfully brings me on to my next point. The point has been made by
Members of all parties that we should try to base our decision making
on the evidence, and I agree with that. I have two points on that.
First, the evidence amply demonstrated and submitted by London councils
and other bodies does not prove that there is an overriding and crying
need for change to the current system. Secondly, as the hon. Member for
Lewes points out, the evidence does demonstrate that the Mayor has not
always used his existing powers wisely, consistently or, dare I say it,
sensibly.
The Mayor
has intervened in a much larger number of applications under his
current limited powers than he tells us he would with his new powers. I
am sorry to say that his track record does not give us any cause to
believe him. Frankly, he has sometimes been capricious in the use of
his current powers. In the Second Reading debate, I instanced a number
of examples in which he used his planning powers in what appeared to be
contradictory manners. Therefore, the Mayor is his own worst enemy.
People are sceptical about the way he plans to exercise his powers in
the future, and we can only go on that evidence that we have thus far,
so that is a concern.
Let me give one further
example, which relates to the Mayor’s philosophy about seeking
to increase densities in London. My concern is that the Mayor drives
that philosophy with an exceedingly rigid and almost fanatical
approach. We all know that London is going to have to increase
densities in the appropriate places to accommodate the growth in
population, but the key test is “appropriate places”.
There is concern that the Mayor does
not—[
Interruption.
] There are parts of
Bromley where it can be accommodated. Bromley council has approved and
is pushing ahead with a very high density scheme in Bromley town
centre, which is a transport hub. It is close to the stations and
shopping centres—exactly the right place to put high-density
development. So that comment does not work, if I may say
so.
Equally, there is
a lack of similar discernment by the Mayor. In outer London there are
places where significant densification can take place, but there are
established suburban areas of a settled physical and environmental
character where it is not appropriate. The Mayor, however, perceives
any application in such areas that comes within his purview as being
driven overwhelmingly by questions of number and density. That lack of
discretion and of concern for local context and character gives real
cause for
concern.
12.45
pm
There
was a specific recent example in my constituency on the Ravensbourne
college site in Chislehurst. A planning application has been allowed on
appeal, but the Mayor had argued to the developers for a higher density
than the inspector ultimately thought was appropriate. That does not
give Chislehurst residents much confidence in the way in which the
Mayor would use his powers. He is seen as desiring to drive things up
even further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, that
is a real concern for many of us—that the Mayor will be dealing
with the developers and pushing them in his political direction in a
way that is not transparent. He handled that application by seeking
almost to ratchet up the densities, which is clearly harmful to the
local environment. That is a clear demonstration of the dangers of
granting the powers without significant checks and balances, which are
not currently
present.
The second
point that I wanted to make was on the practicality of handling the
powers. There are two matters. One is the definition of
“strategic”, in relation to which observations have
already been made
regarding specific parts of the draft order. I shall add just one more,
because there will be other opportunities to consider the detail of the
draft order. Under the draft order, the Mayor can intervene in central
London—in the city of Westminster—in relation to any
development over 10 storeys. Such a development is hardly strategic in
the context of the centre of London. Indeed, it is questionable whether
it would be strategic in Bromley or somewhere like it. It is an
extremely widely drawn part of the definition. It is part of the
package, but I mention it nevertheless as an example of where we should
reconsider. Left as it is, that element would allow the Mayor to
intervene in a huge number of applications—hundreds or perhaps
thousands, if not more. That cannot have been the intention. Perhaps
something slipped in the drafting, but it needs to be looked
at.
The final matter
relates to amendment No.
52.
Robert
Neill:
Well, when we get to it, I will come to it. The
Committee will be aware, however, of the need for
transparency in all things, including in relation to the subject of that
amendment. The reason is the criticism by the London Assembly of the
Mayor—it was referred to earlier—in relation to the
report “Behind Closed Doors.” That criticism was
cross-party, well founded and supported by independent academic
commentators. It would be a good thing were that to be accepted and
were it to be spelt out that it will be specifically dealt with. I
stress the importance of that
point.
The planning
clauses are part of a package, and the concern is that the package is a
centralising rather than a devolving measure, which takes away power
from the boroughs. We do not like the principle, but if we do not have
the numbers to change it, there are some specific practical details to
consider that I hope the Government will re-examine. The points on the
order, its contents, and whether the need for transparency should be in
the Bill are important matters of principle and important to public
confidence. Ultimately, planning systems work and are kept clean only
if the public have that
confidence.
Debate
adjourned.—[Jonathan
Shaw.]
Adjourned
accordingly at nine minutes to One o’clock till this day at Four
o’clock.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 17 January 2007 |