Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not receive the letter of 9 July; I should have made sure that she did. I am happy to put on the record what the letter said in relation to the commuted payments. But, in the sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has raised the principle of the main amendments, I will briefly address those amendments and then come on to the detail. We debated both amendments on Report and I shall not repeat the reasons why I cannot accept them but, for the record, obligations are private agreements which are usually negotiated between local planning authorities and developers, or offered unilaterally by developers, for the benefit of the local planning authority. As the noble Baroness knows well, their purpose is to mitigate harm that would arise from a planning proposal and make acceptable in planning terms a proposal that otherwise could be refused planning permission. Therefore it is entirely logical and necessary that where a planning application is determined by a London borough, it should be the responsibility of the borough to lead on the planning obligation; and when it is the Mayor who is determining an application, it should be him that leads. As regards Amendment No. 6, it is wrong to assume that all the impact arising from a development would necessarily be local or that all the required mitigation would be provided by the boroughs. Each circumstance will determine and depend on the individual development proposal, obviously, and each planning obligation will clearly set out in terms the details of the mitigation to be provided, who will provide it, when it will be provided and the level and timing of funding for the mitigation. But clearly it is the responsibility of the local planning authority—whether that is the Mayor or the borough—to distribute any sums that are due under the obligation in accordance with the terms of the agreement or according to the undertaking. For example, the Mayor acting as the local planning authority may agree that it is necessary for the developer to contribute financially to the provision and maintenance of open space. Providing that open space could be the responsibility of the borough and, if so, the Mayor would pass the agreed sum received from the developer to the borough in accordance with the obligation. But they could have, for example, a large development which could affect the capacity of the strategic road network and the terms of the obligation could require funds to be made available to carry out improvements under the control of TfL. In that case, clearly, the local planning authority—whether it is the Mayor or the borough—would pass the moneys on to TfL to carry out the works. The noble Baroness’s amendment would simply add delay while the money moved from the Mayor to the borough and then might need to pass back to the Mayor or another party. I do not think that is sensible. Amendment No. 7 would require the Mayor to have due regard to the views of the borough which would have decided the application if the Mayor had not taken it over before he decides not to modify or discharge an obligation under Section 106A. I understand the intention behind the amendment. I fully agree that it is important that the Mayor should take account of the views of the local authority in considering whether to modify or discharge an obligation he has been responsible for agreeing. That is why the Bill sets out in Clause 36(4) a new subsection (12) which requires the Mayor to consult the local planning authority before exercising any function under Section 106A. We are clear that our wording requires the Mayor to consult the borough and take account of its views before he reaches a decision on whether he will or will not agree to modify or discharge an obligation. Essentially, the Mayor is making a planning judgment. This means that he must take account of all material considerations, including the response to consultation. Therefore I believe that the wording achieves the effect the noble Baroness wants to see. I turn very briefly to the noble Baroness’s concern about commuted payments for off-site provision of affordable housing, and pooled payments, where the combined impact of a number of developments creates the need for infrastructure would be dealt with under the new arrangements where the Mayor acts as a local planning authority. She was particularly concerned about whether funding provided through Section 106 agreements for off-site provision of affordable housing would be spent within the borough where the development was sited. I can reassure her on this point. One of the things that has happened in the past few months is that we have issued planning policy statement 3 on housing. That makes clear at paragraph 29 that, "““off-site provision [of affordable housing] or a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision…may be accepted as long as the agreed approach contributes to the creation of mixed communities in the local authority area””." I shall be very happy to send the noble Baroness a copy of that. On the pooled contributions, Circular 05/05, which sets out government policy on planning obligations and applies to local planning authorities, including both the Mayor and the boroughs, states at paragraph B21 that pooled contributions may be acceptable where the combined impact of a number of developments creates the need for infrastructure. It goes on to say that pooled contributions can take place between developments and between local authorities where there is a cross-authority impact. However, before pooled contributions can be sought, whether by a borough or by the Mayor, the need and justification for the infrastructure should be set out in advance in development plan policies, which undergo rigorous independent testing. That requirement ensures that pooled contributions can be sought only in appropriate circumstances. Circular 05/05 also puts in place a further series of safeguards. Paragraph B21 makes it clear that there should be a clear audit trail between the contribution made and the infrastructure provided, and paragraph B24 says that, in the event that contributions are made towards specific infrastructure but that infrastructure is not provided within an agreed timetable, arrangements should be made for the contributions to be returned to the developers. I will send the noble Baroness a package of information—the letter that she never received, Planning Policy Statement 3 and Circular 05/05—which I hope will take care of her questions.