DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Hansard, 19 April 2004)

§ Keith Hill
I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 27 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

§ Keith Hill
Amendment No. 26 would mean that the Mayor's spatial development strategy—the London plan—would not become part of the development plan until it had been through a revision. Amendment No. 27 makes a consequential amendment to the wording of clause 37.
Making the plan that sets the strategic planning framework for the region a part of the development plan is an essential part of affirming its status and of reducing uncertainty and ambiguity. This is just as applicable to the London plan as it is to the regional spatial strategies in other regions. In both the regions and London, we believe that our starting point should be for the existing documents to become part of the development plan. We see no advantage in a delay while those plans are prepared from scratch or existing plans altered. The only exceptions to this approach are regional planning 87 guidance 3, London; 3a, Strategic Views in London; 3b, River Thames; 9b, River Thames; and 9a, Thames Gateway. The RPGs that will not become regional spatial strategies are those that have been replaced in large part by the Mayor's London plan or cover areas already covered by another RPG and were not subject to an examination in public when they were prepared.
I do not agree that, unlike the arrangements in our regions, the London plan should not become part of the development plan because at the early stages of its preparation people did not know that the legislation would be introduced. The Bill was introduced on 4 December 2002 and we wrote to the London panel in January 2003—before the examination in public on the draft plan—to draw its attention to the provisions. Our letter was copied to the Association of London Government to make London boroughs aware of the matter.
In any event, the importance of a spatial development plan prepared by the Mayor was well known and I cannot accept the argument that all those who made representations, including all the London boroughs, did not make their best case when doing so.
I do not accept the view that the current London plan contains too much detail to be a strategic development plan. Circular 1/2000, which sets out the arrangements for strategic planning in London, makes it clear that the London plan must deal only with matters of strategic importance. The panel was well aware of that. Where the panel report concluded that policies were insufficiently strategic, that has been taken account of in the final version of the plan. But there is no reason why the London plan should not contain strategic development control policies.
It should not be forgotten that London has a history of quite detailed strategic guidance; for example, the regional planning guidance on strategic views in the capital and on the River Thames. This reflects the particularly close interdependencies of a city compared with a much larger region. The Mayor of London is charged with preparing eight statutory strategies that need to be consistent each with the other. This necessarily means that the London plan needs to contain a substantial number of policies. It does not mean—this is borne out by the examination in public—that they are not appropriate for a strategic development plan in London.
By making the London plan part of the development plan we are increasing clarity and reducing ambiguity. We are not fundamentally altering the existing relationship—one of general conformity—between it and unitary development plans. The practical consequences of the change will be limited. Under the current arrangements, the London plan can still be a "material consideration" when a London borough considers a planning application. The weight given to the policies in the London plan may in some cases be significant. Making the London plan part of the development plan does not mean that boroughs will be suddenly faced with a different set of issues to consider when dealing with planning applications. The same basic principles still apply.
88 I have already said that it is right that the London plan should contain strategic development control policies. Nevertheless, for the majority of planning applications, it is unlikely that the London plan as a strategic document will be an important consideration. I do not see the Mayor becoming involved in non-strategic applications, particularly as we are not altering the arrangements under which the Mayor is to be consulted only on applications that may raise issues of strategic importance.

§ Sir Sydney Chapman
I am following the Minister very carefully because this issue is of great concern and interest to Londoners. Can he assure me that the Mayor cannot intervene in the drawing up of development plan documents by London boroughs, except where he has the right under existing legislation to call in certain applications for significant developments that are going to take place? It would be very helpful if he confirmed that point.

§ Keith Hill
I can confirm that the Mayor's powers of intervention relate to what may be deemed and defined as strategic issues of concern. That is the limit of his powers of intervention, and I hope at some stage to furnish the hon. Gentleman with some examples.

§ Sir Sydney Chapman
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am trying to curtail the discussion as we have a lot of other things to talk about, but I should point out that the Mayor can call in any application that refers to any part of the metropolitan green belt land. In some cases, applications relating to what is a small and insignificant part of the green belt can be called in by the Mayor. Can the Minister enlighten us on that point?

§ Keith Hill
As I said, the Mayor has no power to intervene in borough unitary development plans; he can, however, direct refusal of what are deemed to be strategic planning applications. I hope that that offers the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. Of course, the criteria for those interventions and the criteria relating to strategic planning applications are defined.
However, where applications raise strategic issues that are covered by policies in the London plan, it is true that that could be an important consideration. Given the strategic role of the London plan, it should be reasonably straightforward for London boroughs, in determining planning, applications—and for inspectors attending appeals against the refusal of planning applications—to give appropriate weight to strategic and local planning policies. The concerns expressed about planning applications becoming increasingly complex to determine do not stand up.
As the House is aware, under these arrangements the Mayor already has the power to direct the refusal of a planning application of potentially strategic importance if he considers that granting permission would be contrary to the London plan, or prejudicial to its implementation. The London plan was prepared by the Mayor following extensive consultation and a public examination. London needs a spatial framework, and it is absolutely right that it should have development plan status.

§ Mr. Syms
The Minister has gone some way towards reassuring Members about the concerns expressed, but 89 it is still important to go round the track on this issue. Baroness Hamwee expressed concern in the other place that the London spatial strategy would take precedence over the boroughs' plans, and she discussed the way in which they would interact. My hon Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has drawn my attention to a letter sent to the Minister by Michael Snyder, chairman of the policy and resources committee of the Corporation of London. It is important to put the corporation's concerns on the record, and the letter states that one of them relates to the status of the London Plan. When the plan was issued for public consultation in June 2002, our assumption was that its purpose was to guide the City in the preparation and review of our unitary development plan. The Bill, however, considerably alters the Plan's status. The Corporation's Planning and Transportation Committee considered the Plan on 6th September 2002 (some three months before the Bill was published). While the Committee was generally supportive, it expressed concern both at its length and its level of detail. The London Plan contains much more detail than is usual in a strategic document. Representations along these lines would most certainly have been made to the Mayor if the Corporation had been aware of the importance the plan was to be afforded by the Bill. Since I understand that other boroughs would have made similar representations, it appears unlikely that the London Plan would have remained in the form in which it now appears. The Corporation has no objection to a London Plan being afforded the status of a development document. It does, however, object to the existing London Plan being afforded that status. The level of detail in the London Plan gives rise to a second practical concern. The Corporation's planning officers would naturally expect to consider all major planning applications against the London Plan. Such is the level of detail in the Plan, however, that they will have to consider even the smallest applications against it. You will appreciate that this requirement will delay consideration of planning applications which would otherwise proceed expeditiously, running counter to the Government's laudable endeavour of speeding up the planning system.
The Minister has reassured us that the Mayor's powers extend only to strategic matters, and that even though the London plan—it costs £50 and I am told that it is a jolly good read—goes into great detail, that does not necessarily mean that the corporation's concern about the testing of every application, even the smallest one, against the plan is necessarily justified. I am glad that that has been put on the record, and we do not wish to press the matter further.

§ Matthew Green
I was about to quote from exactly the same letter from the Corporation of London. As the third party, one frustration that the Liberal Democrats have to suffer is that sometimes, certain things have already been said before one gets to one's feet. However, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) quoted the letter in excellent fashion and put the corporation's concerns on the record.
My noble Friend Baroness Hamwee was right to raise this issue, not least because it has forced the Government to clarify the London plan's status in relation to the unitary development plans, and the question of its precedence. The corporation has expressed concern about the timing of the document, and it is not alone. The borough that it represents is not the only borough that might have given a different account of itself when the London plan was drawn up, had it known the extent to which the Bill would alter the 90 plan's status. It is unfortunate for the Government that they have been caught out; the problem is one of timing as much as anything else.
Baroness Hamwee, who is extremely knowledgeable about London planning matters, has sought to ensure that the plan that will be enforced is not this one—the £50 document, which runs to rather a lot of pages—but a subsequent plan that is produced in the light of consultation and of this Bill. I understand the Government's reservations and why they are arguing a different case. As I have said, they have gone some way towards clarifying matters. They have made it clear that they do not expect this to be the guiding document for every planning application in London in the next few years.

§ Mr. Syms
I am perfectly sure that the Government realise that concern does exist; otherwise, the Minister would not have placed a written statement in the record today, setting out a little more clearly how the London plan and the UDPs interact. Baroness Hamwee has done the London planning system a service by raising what is a very important issue, in order to iron out the genuine concerns raised by London borough councils.

§ Matthew Green
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The statement to which he refers has clarified many of the issues, but I hope that the Minister will check whether there are any other areas of contention. Perhaps the Minister will agree to look again at the concerns raised in the Lords, just to check whether any more clarifications are needed, but I am inclined to agree that, in light of the Government's explanations and assurances about their understanding of the interrelationship of the UDPs and the London plan, we need not press the matter at this stage.

§ Sir Sydney Chapman
In a sense, we already have regional government in London, and county status. My borough has an estimated population of 315,000, which is a considerable number, and has many of the same planning powers as the counties. Regardless of whether we favour regional government, it is essential that all the planning bodies should work in co-operation and consensus rather than confrontation.
I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that, with the spatial strategy, the Mayor will not be able to change the boroughs' development plan documents once they have been adopted. It would be helpful for the boroughs to know that. I hope that he can give an answer now, but if not it would be helpful if he could write to me.
I want to iterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said about the status of the London plan. I emphasise that when it was issued it was said to be a guide for the 32 boroughs and the Corporation of London and was certainly not supposed to be sacrosanct, with everyone rowing in behind it.
I am sorry to go off policy and get into personalities, but we have a Mayor—whether he is a charismatic figure is for others to decide—who used to be a member of the Minister's party, but had a Damascene conversion and became independent, which some people think secured him the mayoralty. However, for 91 the first time in my political career, which I admit has been far too long, I have witnessed a double Damascene conversion, and now it seems that he is back in the fold. I warn the Minister that he none the less has certain fixed positions and ambitions, and I do not think that they entirely coincide with new Labour orthodoxy as I understand it.
As a Greater London Member like me, the Minister must know that the Mayor would like to abolish the 32 boroughs and have perhaps four or six—I cannot remember the precise number. Without intruding on his party's private grief, I implore the Minister to take a hold on the Mayor of London and see that he does what the Government think is right, and not to give him too free a rein, because there is a risk that everything will come tumbling down in tears. I am sure that I have the understanding, if not the agreement, of all Greater London Members, and not least the good lady, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan). It is essential that the compartments of responsibility and power in the planning system should be utterly defined.
I am not quite sure what the difference is between "conformity" and "general conformity" in clause 23. My perhaps too simple view is that there is either conformity or there is not. If we start dividing it, as in so many other areas in this Bill, we will start getting into trouble and giving the lawyers a field day.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
The Minister must make crystal clear the relationship between the boroughs' unitary development plans and the Mayor's spatial strategy, as otherwise there will be room for considerable chaos. When one adds into the mix the unitary development corporation in the Thames gateway, which will override both plans, there is even more room for doubt. The Wandsworth borough planning officer to whom I spoke some while ago about the interaction between the development plans and the spatial strategy was scathing about the amount of uncertainty and bureaucracy that could be generated.
The Minister issued a statement on planning today. Perhaps he can explain to us what it means. It says: The test is of 'general conformity' and not conformity. This means that it is only where inconsistency or omission in a UDP would cause significant harm to the implementation of the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) that the UDP should be considered not to be in general conformity. I am sure that the whole House has followed that so far. It continues: The fact that the UDP is inconsistent with one or more of the policies in the SDS, either directly or through the omission of a policy or proposal, does not, by itself, mean that the UDP is not in general conformity. I suspect that the House may be beginning to get lost by now. It continues: Rather the test is how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of the delivery of the SDS; Where a borough considers that one or more of the UDP policies or proposals are not consistent with the SDS, it must give robust reasons for this".
92 That is real civil service gobbledegook. It is very important, in order that the planning system in London is not cast into chaos, that the Minister should give a clear explanation. I look forward to his reply with some consternation and trepidation.

§ Keith Hill
I am tempted to say that I rather share the hon. Gentleman's sense of anticipation, but I will endeavour to satisfy his concerns in due course.
I should point out to my old sparring partner the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that, among my multifarious responsibilities, I am the Minister for London and therefore in regular intercourse with the Mayor—as it were. He will also be aware that I have the honour to represent Streatham, or St. Reatham, as we like to call it—I recall that he himself is a resident of Batterséa—and that the Mayor was born and bred there, and is therefore Streatham's second favourite son. I am well aware of the Mayor's inclinations and dispositions, but I am delighted that he is back in the fold and I will be second to none in the passion with which I campaign for his re-election as the Labour Mayor of London on 10 June.

§ Matthew Green
Before the Minister comes to the explanation that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked for, can he clarify, perhaps in his capacity as the Minister for London., whether he was in favour of the Mayor's readmission, as I gather that the issue split the Cabinet?

§ Keith Hill
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)
Order. Let me save the Minister the trouble of doing that by saying that it is outside the scope of our discussion.

§ Keith Hill
I knew that you would say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your intervention, but it goes without saying that I am unqualified in my enthusiasm for the Mayor, his membership of my party and his re-election campaign over the next couple of months.
If I may be a trifle more serious about the issues raised by Opposition Members, let me respond first to observations made by the Corporation of London. Michael Snyder is a member of a council with which I am in regular contact. We were aware that it was possible to construe the Mayor's interpretation of general conformity as perhaps being unduly detailed. We are clear that it is a test of general conformity and not conformity. That means that it is only where a local development document would cause significant harm to the implementation of the regional spatial strategy or London plan that it should be considered as not being in general conformity. Conservative Members alluded to my statement today, which set out the Government's policy on general conformity. That statement reflects those principles and we also intend to provide guidance on the issue in planning policy statement 12.
The hon. Member for Cotswold challenged me to provide a clearer explanation of our statement on the Government's policy on general conformity between the Mayor's spatial development strategy, the London plan and London boroughs' unitary development plans. I 93 will also seek to offer reassurance to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on the relationship between the Mayor's powers and borough development plan documents.
The test is, we believe, of general conformity, not conformity. That means that it is only where an inconsistency or omission in a UDP would cause significant harm to the implementation of the spatial development strategy that the UDP should be considered not to be in general conformity. The fact that a UDP is inconsistent with one or more policies in the spatial development strategy—either directly or through the omission of a policy or proposal—does not by itself mean that the UDP is not in general conformity; rather it tests how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of delivery of the SDS.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
rose—

§ Keith Hill
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my train of thought, I will be only too delighted to deal with his particular issues of concern. I am seeking to resolve some of the evident anxieties that he demonstrated.
Where a borough considers that one or more of the UDP policies and proposals are not consistent with the SDS, it has to give robust reasons for its view. The opinion of the Mayor—that a UDP is not in general conformity—does not mean that a document automatically falls. Rather, the Mayor's opinion on the matter will go forward as a duly made objection to be considered by the inspector. At the inquiry, the inspector will determine whether he or she supports the opinion, and recommend accordingly. In addition to concerns about a lack of general conformity, the Mayor may wish to make other representations about making changes to specific policies and proposals. So far, so good.
Let me turn to the specific issue of the Mayor's power, raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I am pleased to offer the reassurance that the Mayor has no power to intervene in borough development plan documents, but the hon. Gentleman specifically asked about the status of the UDP. Where a UDP review has passed the formal deposit stage, there is no specific provision for the Mayor to make formal objections on grounds of general conformity, but, like any other party, the Mayor may make representations to a borough at any time before the adoption of the plan. However, the Secretary of State would wish the Mayor and the boroughs to resolve issues of general conformity through discussion, having regard to the Secretary of State's policy. It will be for the boroughs to satisfy themselves that a UDP is in general conformity with the spatial development strategy before proceeding to adoption. I would also like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Mayor cannot call in any planning application, but can direct refusal of strategic planning applications. The definition of a strategic application is set out as I have indicated in circular 1/2000.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
The Minister is merely reading out words of civil service gobbledegook. Will he please explain in his own words the meaning of "significant harm" and "inconsistency" with the UDP. It would be good to hear in the Minister's own words what some of 94 those terms mean. It remains unclear to me—and, I suspect, to the rest of the House and certainly to the planning community in London—what exactly will happen and the degree to which the UDP has to be out of kilter with the Mayor's spatial plan. Please can the Minister do better and explain to the House what those terms mean?

§ Keith Hill
With permission, I would like to respond to that. The hon. Gentleman should not get so agitated. It seems to me that the words—my own words—that I just articulated are absolutely crystal clear. I also draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesman and the Liberal Democrat spokesman have both gone out of their way to welcome the clarification that my statement today has offered. That will do for me.
Lords amendment disagreed to.
Lords amendment No. 27 disagreed to.