Greater London Authority Act 2007

Written submission from the London Forum (GLA 07)

This is a response to the Committee's questions about the outcome of the GLA Act 2007 by the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies, a charity established 25 years ago to network and support over 100 community groups in London.

1. The Government's memorandum indicates that most parts of the 2007 Act had little effect or are impossible to assess because further legislation has superseded the 2007 Act. The Committee would welcome comments on this assertion.

The increased powers of the Mayor to call-in planning applications and to establish a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) have not been clarified sufficiently by him in process terms. Communities are concerned that local authority planning decisions have been over-ruled by the Mayor without full justification.

The MDC puts the Mayor into the position of being both a developer and a planning authority operating development control. It is not clear what safeguards there are for communities and Councils in the Mayor granting himself planning permission.

There has been a major problem of excessive housing density in London. The London Plan states that all new housing developments should be within 5% of the density range for the site on which they are built. The actual figure is around sixty percent. Many such schemes have been approved by the Mayor's Planning Decisions Unit. They are not all developments of quality and many lack sufficient amenity space to meet the London Plan's other policies and guidance by the Mayor on children's play space. Density above policy levels results in overloading of local infrastructure and facilities.

The further legislation on planning by DCLG is not all suitable for London. For example the conversion of offices to dwellings and the extensions of homes, all without planning permission, are contrary to the Mayor's policies in the London Plan. Following the Localism Act, DCLG should not have tried to take away local decision making and should not dictate how development will be assessed. The elected Mayor of London had been given the right to develop a spatial development strategy for the capital. He should not have to change it to conform to new policies beyond those in the NPPF, particularly if they could damage the economic development of London.

2. In the Committee's view there are matters on which the legislation can be examined and it seeks views.

Q What has been the effect of the increased planning powers conferred by the 2007 Act on the Mayor?

For example, where the Mayor declares himself to be the planning authority, he negotiates and receives the payments from section 106 agreements. One issue raised before the legislation was enacted was whether this money would be spent on infrastructure projects of interest to the

Mayor, not on projects important to the local authority.

See comments above on the MDC.

The Mayor has operated a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for funding Crossrail.

In the locations to which that commitment applies, the boroughs have had to collect the 'Mayor's CIL' on his behalf. That has limited their ability to secure further borough CIL for infrastructure, as developers claim that it makes schemes unviable, which they have been encouraged to do by DCLG Ministers.

The Government has also recommended renegotiation of existing S.106 agreements and that has the potential to reduce contributions by developers to affordable housing in the capital.

It is not clear on what the Mayor spends any S.106 income received by the GLA.

Planning Minister Nick Boles announced on 10th January 2013 that the GLA Mayoral Development Corporation will be able to impose a CIL. It is not clear how the Mayor will "spend it in accordance with the wishes of the community", as Nick Boles indicated should happen.

What benefits have been achieved through the establishment of the London Waste and Recycling Board? For example, has it improved efficiency, recycling rates, joint working or instead created further layers of bureaucracy? What hard and fast evidence is there of tangible improvements which would not otherwise have occurred?

The establishment of the London Waste and Recycling Board has allowed a strategic approach to be taken across London.

The identification of London-wide priorities, particularly in recycling and re-use, has seen an increase in diversion from Landfill and a significant increase in recycling rates.

The Board has leveraged funding into its programme which individual Boroughs would have struggled to do.

It has funded innovative projects, and has funded projects in important areas which Councils cannot do - for example targeting recycling from SMEs

They also estimate the current efficiency programme of joint working between councils will deliver savings of over £4.6 million.

Five years is a short timescale in delivering waste infrastructure projects and it is too early to assess how significant the impact the Board has had.

Some form of London-wide waste board is needed and it is difficult to see an alternative model which the Boroughs would support.

The Board will want moreincome to continue post 2015 but funding remains extremely restricted.

Q How has the duty on the Mayor to create strategies impacted when there are no powers specifically to implement them? Have the strategies influenced policies either of central government or of the boroughs?

The process has gone well. The London Plan forms the basic Core Strategy for all London's boroughs to which they add polices for their Local Plan. They have been positively influenced by the Mayor's London Plan and its associated Guidance documents. The latter are necessary now that DCLG has asked the Taylor Review to reduce the quantity of guidance in PPGs and PPSs. That guidance to Council planning and development management officers is important and it should be rationalised but not reduced in scope.

The London Plan has key Performance Indicators for monitoring. They indicate the problem above of excessive density of housing.

The London Plan has been developed in its 2011 version to state what boroughs should have in their Local Plan and on what basis they should make planning decisions. However, communities find that borough development control case officers do not quote or use the London Plan policies sufficiently.

The Mayor has introduced a London Plan Implementation Plan to ensure that issues are addressed and to support his Annual Monitoring Report.

The main problem is as described above that DCLG keeps changing the national planning policies after the NPPF was published in ways that are not suitable for London.

The NPPF revoked Government Office for London Circular 1/2008 which "provided advice and guidance on the arrangements for strategic planning in London". The Mayor considers that it is helpful for him to fill the gap that this leaves with a document at http://bit.ly/Xo9jFe that provides some information about his planning functions, and the way in which he intends to carry them out.

The Committee might consider how well that document meets its expectations.

3) The legislation raises a wider question about the London Assembly, and the Committee invites submissions on the powers and operation of the Assembly. To assist those making a submission the Committee has posed several questions which they may wish to consider, though they are not exhaustive.

London Forum supports the kinds of scrutinies that the Assembly's committees initiate.

We think that the Mayor's officers are slow to respond to recommendations by the Assembly Members in their reports.

The attendance at City Hall by Assembly Members and their response to emails varies considerably. As a result of the political nominations system, Several of the Assembly Members have work commitments as Councillors in London's local authorities which keeps them aware of local government matters and issues but restricts their availability for GLA work.

March 2013