Clause
31
Mayor
to determine certain applications for planning
permission
Michael
Gove:
I beg to move amendment No. 52, in
page 36, line 20, at end
insert—
‘
“2D Application to be heard in public
Mayoral decisions on planning
applications shall be made in public after public oral representations
by interested
parties.”.’.
The
amendment relates heavily to the debate that we have just had, and to
an extent some of the arguments were pre-empted by the Minister in her
summing-up. I do not think that there is any shame in the Minister
having done so, because the amendment is so intimately involved with
that debate and discussion. The purpose
of the amendment is simply to ensure that the exercise of the
Mayor’s planning powers is put on a statutory footing when it
comes to the question of public consultation. In the previous debate we
rehearsed the way in which the Mayor—apart from the Secretary of
State, who exercises a unique power—is a one-man or one-woman
planning authority. The case for public involvement
in the process of the Mayor deliberating on planning applications has
already been conceded in principle in the order that relates to the
Mayor’s exercise of positive planning powers. The Minister has
acknowledged that it would be perfectly possible for the Mayor, if he
wished, to shape a public hearing after he had received an application
from the individual or from the developer who was pushing a planning
application or from the borough that was or had been responsible for
deciding it. In certain circumstances, we already have a procedure to
allow the Mayor to give his deliberations in public and to receive
evidence in public. Unfortunately, the provision in the order allows
the Mayor to decide the scope of the tribunal or hearing. It seems to
us that our amendment would put on a statutory footing the requirement
that we would set out not for the Mayor, but for all time through this
House for the way that such a public hearing should take
place.
If the
Government believe that it is important on such a matter—they
clearly do, given the detail into which they have gone in the
order—to lay down centrally what a strategic planning
application might be, for example, how much more important is it for
Government to lay down how the Mayor should exercise those powers in
public rather than leaving it for this Mayor or a future Mayor to
decide on a matter of whim how he might seek to do so? When the
Minister was discussing the exercise of those powers in public, she
made it seem almost as though we were being invited to vote for some
sort of return to ancient Greece, where the citizens of London would
gaze on the Mayor—as though, like Socrates, he would sit there
with one fist underneath his chin as he deliberated on the planning
applications—waiting, waiting, waiting until he delivered
himself of his view. The truth, however, is that what we would require
and what the amendment seeks to promote is a means whereby the Mayor
would have to justify in public the decision to which he came, to
publish in public the papers that govern that decision, to take
evidence in public from those who had a material interest and to ensure
a greater degree of transparency.
I should say that that
initiative, far from being the quixotic view of those on the
Conservative Benches, is soundly based on the Greater London
assembly’s report on planning, “Behind Closed
Doors”, which I earlier commended to the Committee. If the
Minister feels that for any reason the amendment is not drafted
precisely as she would like, I will make her an offer. If she wishes to
come up with an appropriate new clause either in the course of this
Committee or on Report with a means of putting on a statutory footing
how the Mayor should decide those applications, we are more than
willing to meet her to discuss that. It seems that to leave the
decision entirely to the Mayor in the order, which is pendant on our
discussions, is to leave in the hands of a future incumbent of that
office a power that we in this House should delineate
today.
Tom
Brake:
This morning we had a full discussion of the risks
associated with a one-man planning authority. In an intervention, I
invited the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to speculate on the scenario
of a Mayor with a financial interest in a particular application. I did
not want to give the Committee the impression that I was impugning the
present Mayor’s probity, but I think that we need to prepare for
all eventualities. It is our business to tackle hypothetical
situations, hence the need for the amendment to ensure that the process
is totally
transparent.
I have
served as a local councillor on two councils. The first was Labour
Hackney in the late ’80s, where little was done to promote
affordable housing and council keys were sold to people who were not
legitimate tenants. More recently, I served in the London borough of
Sutton. I know the pressures that local councillors face when they are
asked to consider planning matters in which they are discouraged from
entering into any discussion with developers. Councils must have a full
and open consultation process and go overboard in providing their
residents with information about planning matters. If they do not, God
forbid, the residents’ response will be very strong indeed. The
amendment would make the process public by ensuring that everything is
fully documented, all the documents in which decisions are based are in
the public domain and everything is open to
scrutiny.
Mr.
Hands:
Is it not also the case that the current Mayor
seems to support the amendment? His submission to us
said:
“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.”
Tom
Brake:
I am grateful for that
intervention. If the Government do not go down the road that we are
proposing in the amendment, the Mayor has committed himself on record
to certain things to which we will be able to hold
him.
Stephen
Pound:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that this intervention
will have nothing whatever to do with the working man’s ballet.
He is making a powerful case in support of the official
Opposition’s amendment. The last two words of the amendment are
“interested parties”. Bearing in mind that there is not a
person on this planet who is not interested in London, has he given any
thought to the possible consequences of any person describing
themselves as an interested party making oral representations? Surely
that is a recipe for ultimate
gridlock.
Tom
Brake:
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath,
who speaks for the official Opposition, has addressed that point. He
invited the Minister for Housing and Planning, if she is not satisfied
with the wording of the amendment, to present an alternative. A
precedent was set by the Minister for London when he agreed to draft an
alternative to amendment No. 38. We hold out the hope that the Minister
for Housing and Planning and Labour Members will see the amendment as
straightforward and entirely
in keeping with our debate, and we think that they can support it. It is
about transparency. We do not have a proprietary hold on the amendment.
If the Government want to come forward with their alternative, I am
sure that it would receive support from these
Benches.
5.15
pm
Yvette
Cooper:
I have sympathy with the intention behind the
amendment. We certainly attempted in the order to introduce
transparency into the procedures that the Mayor must follow. As a
minimum, he must hear oral representations from the applicant and the
local authority, if it so wishes, before making a decision. That goes
further than requirements placed on other local planning authorities.
There is no requirement for local planning authorities to allow oral
representations to be made to planning
committees.
There are
also procedures for the Mayor to publish a statement setting out lists
of other persons who will hear oral representations for other
procedures to be followed and so on. As I said earlier, I have sympathy
with the idea that, in fact, those oral representations should take
place in public. We should take that into account in the order because
it is an important part of the process of delivering transparency.
However, I reiterate the fact that there are serious practical worries
about trying to replicate the role of Socrates, as the hon. Member for
Surrey Heath suggested. If the current Mayor chooses to emulate
Socrates, that is obviously a matter for him. However, I do not think
that it is a sensible issue to be dealt with under primary
legislation.
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit with
which she has so far approached the principle of openness, with which
we all agree. Does she accept that, because of the importance to those
involved of planning and the issues that we have discussed, the
Government should concede as a matter of principle the commitment to
having the planning hearings take place in public. Whatever wording is
used, that principle is so important that it should be outlined in the
Bill rather than be dependent on the concession of a Mayor or made
under regulations? That is what we are driving
at.
Yvette
Cooper:
Again, I say that the matter is
about process. It is better dealt with under secondary legislation than
under primary legislation. I am happy to agree to the principle about
hearing representations in public rather than in private, but such a
process is most sensibly dealt with as part of the order under
secondary legislation rather than by primary legislation. That approach
reflects the practical approach that we take to other aspects of
planning deliberations. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw the amendment. I do understand the intention behind it and
have sought to set out the Government’s
response.
Michael
Gove:
I am disappointed that the Government have not
responded in the way that we would wish, although I acknowledge the
gracious way in which the Minister has dealt with the spirit of the
amendment. There is a disagreement between us about how precisely to
achieve the goal that I think we both
share, although we have greater ardour in wishing to see the Mayor held
to account publicly. We shall therefore press the amendment to a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
14
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C.
(Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Motion made, and Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
6.
Division
No.
15
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C.
(Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 31 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
|
