Leaders’ Committee
DCLG consultation on changes to the
Mayor of London Order 2000
Report by:
Damian Price
Date:
10 October 2006
Contact
Officer:
Damian Price
Telephone:
020 7934 9909
Item no: 4
Job title:
Transport and Planning Section Manager
Email:
[email protected]
Summary
The Government published a policy statement setting out final proposals
for additional powers and responsibilities for the Greater London Authority
(GLA) on 13 July 2006.
A further consultation was launched on 10 August on powers for the
Mayor of London to decide planning applications of major strategic
importance.
The consultation proposes a number of changes to the definition of a
strategic application. It also proposes a policy test that is to be undertaken
by the Mayor to identify when he would take over decision making of a
strategic application.
The ALG has a number of concerns about the Mayor gaining powers to
grant approval for strategic applications. The proposed ALG response to
the consultation is set out in Appendix Two.
Recommendations
Leaders are asked to:

Comment on the draft ALG response to the consultation on
the proposed changes to the Mayor of London Order 2000

Agree that the final response will incorporate any
comments agreed by ALG Leaders at this meeting and be cleared
under ALG urgency procedures.
DCLG consultation on changes to the Mayor of London Order
2000
Background
1. On Thursday 13 July, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
published its final proposals for additional powers and responsibilities for the Mayor and
London Assembly. As part of the additional powers in planning, the DCLG stated:
‘We believe that the Mayor should have discretion to decide a small number of the most
strategically important planning applications in London so as to ensure decision-making
takes place at the most appropriate level and regional planning policies are fully taken
into account.’
2. Currently, the Mayor has the power to direct refusal over a defined set of strategic
applications. The full list of criteria for a strategic application is defined in the Town and
Country Planning Order (Mayor of London) 2000 and is set out in Appendix One. The Mayor
can direct refusal if the application is:

contrary to the spatial development strategy or prejudicial to its implementation

otherwise contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London
3. The DCLG announcement on 13 July stated that it would consult further on measures that
would enable the Mayor to take over a strategic planning application, if he feels justified. He
will then have the power to grant permission for that application. Where he does not take over
a strategic application, he will retain the power to direct refusal. He also gains the power to
take over all applications for waste facilities that he determines are strategic.
4. Cllr Merrick Cockell, Chairman of the ALG met with Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government on 13 July 2006 at which the Review of the Mayor’s
Powers was discussed. The Chairman expressed concern over the potential concentration of
planning powers in the hands of an individual, as opposed to a planning committee in a
borough where decisions are taken openly. He also raised concerns over whether the
Mayor’s housing policies could inappropriately influence his planning decisions.
5. The Secretary of State emphasised that the extent of the new planning powers depended
upon the definition of strategic, which is part of the current consultation. She also said that the
Government was clear that the Mayor could not both promote a scheme and be the planning
authority for it. Also, the Mayor of London should only be involved in broad strategy, not ‘sites
on specific streets’.
DCLG Consultation on Changes to the Mayor of London Order 2000
6. On 10 August 2006, the DCLG published a further consultation document as part of the
process to identify the arrangements under which the Mayor could take over powers to grant
approval for strategic planning applications. A more detailed extract from the consultation
document is attached as Appendix One. The consultation paper sets out the Government’s
preferred approach on three key aspects of the new arrangements:

The thresholds which define applications as being of potential strategic importance
and must be referred to the Mayor;

A policy test which the Mayor would need to apply to those applications he reviews to
decide whether his intervention would be justified. He would be required to give
reasons when he decided to take on the application; and

Changes to some of the processes and procedures for referral of applications to the
Mayor.
Amendments to the thresholds
7. The table below sets out the proposed amendments to be considered for the thresholds (the
current definition of a strategic application is set out in full in Appendix One):
Waste Applications:
 Hazardous waste at 5,000 tonnes throughput per year
 Non-hazardous waste at 50,000 tonnes per year
 Sites for non-hazardous waste >1 hectare
For waste applications that are departures from the Development Plan
Documents the thresholds will be:
 Hazardous waste at 2,000 tonnes throughput per year
 Non-hazardous waste at 20,000 tonnes per year
 Sites for non-hazardous waste >0.5 hectare
Tram stations:
 Applications for tram stations will be added to the category 2C in
appendix One
Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)
 All departure applications for construction of a building on MOL
The Policy Test
8. The DCLG consultation on changes to the Mayor of London Order 2000 sets out a policy test
that the Mayor will have to apply when considering if he is going to take over a planning
application.
9. In the Mayor’s view, he must be confident that:

the planning application raises issues of a nature and scale that would significantly
impact on the implementation of specific London Plan policies; and

The issues raised by the application have significant effects that go wider than a
single borough
10. To justify taking over an application the Mayor would need to demonstrate clearly that both
criteria are satisfied and that in making his decision he has taken into account:

The borough’s analysis of the Development Plan policies relevant to the application
and how it intends to apply relevant London Plan policies;

The borough’s record in dealing with previous applications which have raised strategic
planning issues; and

Any precedent an application is likely to establish for implementing London Plan
policies.
Proposed Changes to Procedures
11. The revised procedures also outline the following courses of action that the Mayor can take
when a planning application meets a certain threshold:

Notify the borough that he is happy for them to make the decision on the application
without further reference to him (the Mayor has this power currently); or

Notify the borough that he wishes to be consulted again after the borough has
considered their approach to the strategic issues raised by the application. This is to
allow him to decide whether he should take over determination of the application by
applying a policy test (this is a new power for the Mayor);or

Notify the borough that he is content for them to make the decision on the application
but that he wants to be consulted again when the Council’s intention is known. This is
to allow him to consider whether he should direct the borough to direct refusal of the
application (the Mayor has this power currently).
12. The outcomes, dependent on the course of action that the Mayor could take, are as follows:

If the first bullet point happens, the Mayor will have no further involvement in the
planning application.

If the second bullet point happens, the Mayor would decide whether or not to take
over the application by applying the policy test (This is new stage 2).

If the third bullet point happens, in keeping with the current arrangements, the
borough will consider the application in the normal way and, if they intend to grant
planning permission, they must give the Mayor the opportunity to decide whether to
direct them to refuse the application.
ALG Response to the consultation
13. The ALG has consulted boroughs and collated views into the draft ALG response. Six
borough responses have been received. The draft ALG response was also discussed with
officers from LB Greenwich, LB Haringey, LB Hounslow, LB Havering and LB Tower Hamlets
through the special working group set up to take forward ALG lobbying initiatives on this
issue. The draft response has also been discussed through the ALG’s Officer Advisory Panel
on Planning Group and through the Association of London Borough Planning Officers
(ALBPO). The proposed draft ALG response to the consultation is attached in Appendix Two.
The closing date for responses to the consultation is 2 November 2006. The final ALG report
will be signed off through ALG urgency procedures to incorporate any further feedback.
Draft ALG response to the consultation on changes to the Mayor of London Order 2000
14. The ALG has a number of significant concerns over the proposals set out in the consultation
document. The main points are set out in this report below. The proposed draft ALG response
to the consultation is attached as Appendix Two.
General Comments
15. It is not necessary or appropriate to give the Mayor the power to grant approval for certain
strategic applications.

The proposal to transfer additional development control powers to the Mayor would tip the
emphasis towards strategic considerations and away from local considerations. There
seems to be no advantage in moving the planning decision making process further away
from an established system. It would also further remove local communities from the
decision making process and reduce democratic accountability.

The impact that the transfer of development control powers to the Mayor will further
increase the complexity of the planning system and create delays at a time when the
Government wants to streamline the planning system and improve delivery

There has been no analysis of the effectiveness and value for money of the Mayor’s
current involvement in planning applications. The ALG does not consider that the case
has been proven for additional planning powers for the Mayor.
ALG comments on proposed change in thresholds for the definition of a strategic
application
16. The ALG does not agree with the Government’s proposals on amendments to the thresholds
for referral of planning applications to the Mayor.

Specifically, the proposals for waste applications would mean that the Mayor could have
responsibility for many facilities that are purely local in nature.

The ALG believes that it may be appropriate to consider raising other thresholds to
ensure that boroughs are able to balance strategic aims with local policy objectives to
best meet the needs of their local areas.
ALG comments on the proposed Policy Test
17. The proposed policy test is extremely vague over where the Mayor could intervene and take
over a planning application. It is also subjective with a significant amount of emphasis on the
Mayor’s own interpretation of the situation.
18. There is a need to ensure that any policy tests incorporates the following issues:

There is a counter-balance to protect boroughs’ interests. There is currently no
requirement for the Mayor to consider the impact of the proposed development on the
borough’s own Development Plan Document.

There is a need for a robust and transparent policy process. The current definition of the
policy test is too vague and open to misinterpretation by the Mayor.

There is a need for an appropriate mechanism for boroughs to challenge the Mayor’s
decision. As the proposals stand, the only way to challenge the Mayor’s decision would
be through the courts.

There is a need for a narrower definition of the policy tests. The DCLG has stated that it
considers that the Mayor would only take over a small number of applications. The
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is said in the 13 July 2006
meeting with the Chairman of the ALG that the Government wanted the Mayor to be
concerned only with broad strategy and not ‘specific streets’. However, the policy tests
are sufficiently subjective (and broad) for the Mayor to take over a wide range of planning
applications. The focus of the policy test should be on the strategic importance of the
development itself for implementation of the London Plan and not for application of
individual London Plan policies. ALG would therefore propose for further discussion the
following modified version of the policy test:
”Does the planning application propose a development which raises strategic issues of a
nature and scale that are of special importance for the implementation of the London
Plan, and which will have important effects on more than one borough?”

Removal of the element that allows the Mayor to take into account a borough’s past
record in dealing with planning applications. This is inappropriate and not a policy issue.
ALG comments on the proposed changes to dealing with procedures
19. The ALG does not feel that the new procedures are the correct mechanism for handling
planning applications in London. There are a number of concerns related to the proposed
policy test which will have an impact on the subsequent process and these are listed above.
Further concerns on the process are:

The current proposals do not provide for such an open and transparent process of
decision-making as happens with all other planning authorities. I.e. where decisions are
made in public, with a right of representation for all stakeholders and appropriate right of
appeal.

If the borough is still responsible for the consultation process but the Mayor is responsible
for making the decision, this could undermine the credibility of borough-led consultations.

The new policies and procedures put the onus on London boroughs to outline to the
Mayor the strategic issues raised by an application. It should be the role of the Mayor to
initially identify why he feels justified in taking over the decision making role of an
application taking into account the issues listed in paragraph 18. There then should be
scope for a borough to challenge this.
20. The ALG suggests that when the borough makes an assessment of strategic issues, it should
also indicate whether at that stage the borough is (a) likely to approve the application subject
to conditions and a legal agreement, (b) likely to refuse the application or (c) as yet
undecided. Since the Mayor is already able to direct refusal on applications referred to him,
he should not be able to take over applications which the borough indicates that it is likely to
approve
21. The full text of the ALG’s proposed draft response is included in Appendix Two.
Next Steps
22. Following discussions of the ALG response by Leaders, the final ALG response will be signed
off through ALG urgency procedures. This will be promoted as part of the ALG lobbying
strategy on the review of powers for the Mayor of London.
23. Borough Leaders have been invited to a breakfast seminar at the ALG, hosted jointly with
London First, to discuss planning issues, including the planning elements of the review of
GLA powers, on Thursday 12 October at 8.30am.
Recommendations
Leaders are asked to:

Comment on the proposed draft ALG response to the consultation on the
proposed changes to the Mayor of London Order 2000

Agree that the final response will incorporate any comments agreed by ALG
Leaders at this meeting

Agree that the final response be endorsed through ALG urgency procedures
Financial Implications for ALG
There are no financial implications for the ALG
Legal Implications for ALG
There are no legal implications for the ALG
Equalities Implications for ALG
There are no equalities implications for the ALG.
Background Papers
ALG response to the Government’s consultation paper on additional powers and responsibilities
for the Mayor and Assembly, February 2006
Appendix One
The Greater London Authority: The Government’s Final Proposals for Additional Powers
and Responsibilities for the Mayor and Assembly
A Consultation Paper on changes to the Mayor of London Order 2000 August 2006
The following extract outlines in full the proposed changes in the Government’s consultation
paper.
Part A: The Consultation Document
Planning applications are submitted to the borough in the first instance. If an application meets
one of the thresholds in the Order the borough must send the Mayor a copy of the application as
soon as reasonably practicable after its receipt. In practice, consultation with the Mayor will
normally occur at the same time as other statutory consultees.
The Mayor then has the same opportunity as other statutory consultees to submit
representations on the application – 21 days. This is known as stage 1. During this time the
Mayor can also do one of two things;
i. He can inform the borough he is happy for them to make the decision on the application without
further reference to him; or
ii. He can inform the borough that he wants to be notified of the borough’s decision on the
application in order to decide whether to direct the borough to refuse the application.
If the Mayor wants to be notified of the borough’s decision, the borough may not grant permission
for a period of 14 days from the date the notification is received by the Mayor. This is known as
stage 2. Within this 14 day period, the Mayor may direct the borough to refuse the application.
Any such direction must be accompanied by a statement of reasons, and must be copied to the
Secretary of State.
Revised procedures
Planning applications will continue to be submitted to the borough in the first instance. Building
on the current system, if an application meets a threshold, defining it as being of potential
strategic importance, we propose that the Mayor should choose one of three options after
receiving it (new stage 1):
a) Notify the borough that he is happy for them to make the decision on the application without
further reference to him (the Mayor has this power currently); or
b) Notify the borough that he wishes to be consulted again after the borough has considered their
approach to the strategic issues raised by the application. This is to allow him to decide whether
he should take over determination of the application by applying a policy test (this is a new power
for the Mayor); or
c) Notify the borough that he is content for them to make the decision on the application but that
he wants to be consulted again when the Council’s intention is known. This is to allow him to
consider whether he should direct the borough to direct refusal of the application (the Mayor has
this power currently).
Outcomes
• If a) happens, the Mayor will have no further involvement in the planning application.
• If b) happens the Mayor would decide whether or not to take over the application by applying
the policy test
• If c) happens, in keeping with the current arrangements, the borough will consider the
application in the normal way and, if they intend to grant planning permission, they must give the
Mayor the opportunity to decide whether to direct them to refuse the application.
Consultation and enforcement
We propose that boroughs will be responsible for undertaking consultation on planning
applications taken over by the Mayor. We also propose they should be responsible for enforcing
planning obligations and conditions that are attached to planning permissions issued by the
Mayor. This is because boroughs already have established consultation mechanisms and
standards in place and enforcement teams.
Fees
We will be considering the issue of planning application fees over the summer in light of the new
arrangements in conjunction with boroughs and the Mayor. Reserved matters applications and
listed building consent applications.
If a planning application that the Mayor takes over is in outline, we propose the
Mayor will also be responsible for subsequently deciding the reserved matters application(s).
Similarly, if a planning application is accompanied by a listed building consent application, this
should also fall to the Mayor to determine, subject to the normal procedures involving English
Heritage.
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MAYOR OF
LONDON) ORDER 2000
The Government proposes that the thresholds set out in the Mayor of London
Order 2000 should remain as currently set out other than in the following respects. The existing
Order is attached below.
Part II, Category 2A
Waste facilities
We propose three main thresholds triggering referral to the Mayor. Applications for waste
facilities for:
• hazardous waste at 5,000 tonnes throughput per year
• non-hazardous waste at the current 50,000 tonnes per year
• sites for hazardous or non-hazardous waste over 1 hectare
We propose to provide for the Mayor to see applications for waste facilities that do not accord
with the development plan (departures). This is because the acceptability in principle of a waste
use in that location has not been established.
We propose lower thresholds to trigger referral to the Mayor for these matters:
• hazardous waste at 2,000 tonnes throughput per year
• non-hazardous waste at 20,000 tonnes per year
• sites for hazardous or non-hazardous waste over 0.5 hectare
These thresholds will also be used to refer applications that seek to change existing or allocated
waste sites to non-waste uses and depart from the development plan.
We also propose these thresholds should be used to refer applications for residential or mixed
use development which do not accord with the development plan and which abut existing or
allocated waste facilities. This is necessary to ensure that non-waste uses that could prejudice
the waste use are fully considered against strategic policies.
Part II, Category 2C
Tram stations – We propose that planning applications for tram stations are referred to the Mayor
by being included in category 2C of part II.
Part III, Category 3D
Metropolitan Open Land – Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is a London Plan policy rather than a
national policy. Therefore, it is principally the responsibility of the Mayor to see it enforced.
Currently, the Mayor only sees planning applications for development on MOL if, amongst other
things, they are departures and involve construction of a building over 1000 square metres.
Given the strategic importance of MOL, we propose that the Mayor should see all departure
applications for construction of a building or buildings on MOL or for a material change of use in
such existing buildings.
Question One
Do you agree with the Government’s proposals on thresholds for referral of planning applications
to the Mayor?
POLICY TEST
The Government expects that decisions on planning applications should normally be made by
boroughs. London boroughs will continue to be responsible for deciding the vast majority of
planning applications in the capital, including most applications of strategic importance. The
Mayor should take over no more than a limited number of strategic planning applications in any
given year that raise issues of London-wide or sub-regional importance.
The Mayor will be required to apply criteria to decide whether he would be justified in taking over
the decision making on an application referred to him. We want the criteria to be as robust and
clear-cut as possible, so as to minimise disputes between the Mayor and the boroughs. We
propose the following two criteria that could be set out in a circular or in a Ministerial Statement.
The Criteria
In the Mayor’s view:
• Does the planning application raise issues of a nature and scale that would significantly impact
on the implementation of specific London Plan policies? and
• Do the issues raised by the application have significant effects that go wider than a single
borough?
To justify taking over an application to secure implementation of the relevant London Plan
policies, the Mayor would need to clearly demonstrate that both criteria are satisfied and that in
making his decision he has taken into account:
• The borough’s analysis of the Development Plan policies relevant to the application and how it
intends to apply relevant London Plan policies;
• The borough’s record in dealing with previous applications which have raised strategic planning
issues; and
• Any precedent an application is likely to establish for implementing London Plan policies.
The Mayor would have to publish the reasons for his decision.
The Government expects that any disagreements between boroughs and the
Mayor, or applicants and Mayor, about the application of the policy test should be resolved
through discussion. However, the option of legal challenge would be available in the event that
agreement could not be reached. We do not propose a role for the Secretary of State in
arbitrating on any dispute.
Question Two
Do you consider this test provides a clear basis for the Mayor to decide whether he should take
over a planning application?
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO PROCEDURES
The flow diagram below illustrates the new processes for planning applications.
New Stage 1
We propose the Mayor should have 21 days from the date he receives the application and other
paperwork to respond to the borough. This is new stage 1. This would be in keeping with current
arrangements for statutory consultees under the General Development Procedure Order 1995.
The Government accepts that these timescales are challenging. However, this is the case for
other consultees and is necessary to ensure that decisions on applications are made in good
time.
Where the Mayor decides that a planning application may raise issues that could warrant him
taking over the decision making of it, he will notify the borough of this by the end of new stage 1.
The borough will then be required to set out their approach to the strategic issues raised by the
application in the context of the London Plan policies. We propose the borough should have a 6
week period to make this assessment and to send their view to the Mayor. So as to minimise
delay, we propose this 6 week period would start from the date the borough receives the
application. This will mean that the strategic implications of a planning application above the
thresholds, as set by the London Plan, will always be amongst the first set of issues considered
by the borough irrespective of any action the Mayor may subsequently take. We consider this
justified because the London Plan is part of the development plan and therefore must be taken
into account even if the decision remains with the borough.
New Stage 2
Once the Mayor receives the borough’s assessment of the strategic issues raised by an
application he would decide whether he would be justified to take over jurisdiction of it (new stage
2). It is crucially important that the Mayor’s decision at stage 2 is soundly based. We propose the
Mayor should have 21 days to make his decision and inform the borough.
Decision stages
There are three possible outcomes:
• If at new stage 1 the Mayor has not intervened in a planning application, the decision to grant or
refuse planning permission will be made by the borough.
• If at new stage 2 the Mayor can demonstrate that all parts of the policy test have been met he
will take over the planning application and decide to grant or refuse planning permission.
• If at new stage 1 or at new stage 2 the Mayor decides the application does not raise issues that
may warrant him taking over the decision making of it, he may still ask to be notified when the
borough has reached a decision on the application. This would enable the Mayor to exercise his
power to direct the borough to refuse the application. As now, we propose the Mayor should have
14 days to make this decision. The countdown of the 14 days would start as soon as the Mayor
receives the application and associated papers. Retaining the 14 day period for this stage will
provide for the Secretary of State to take account of the Mayor’s decision in deciding whether to
exercise her power to call-in applications for her determination.
Question Three
Do you agree with the new procedures for handling planning applications
in London?
Summary of questions
1. Do you agree with the Government’s proposals on thresholds for referral of planning
applications to the Mayor?
2. Do you consider the policy test provides a clear basis for the Mayor to decide whether
he should take over a planning application?
3. Do you agree with the new procedures for handling planning applications in London?
Part B: The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000
Defining a strategic application as set out by the current Mayor of London Order 2000
PART I: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
Category 1A
1. Development which (a) comprises or includes the provision of more than 500 houses, flats, or houses and flats; or
(b) comprises or includes the provision of flats or houses and the development occupies more
than 10 hectares.
Category 1B
1. Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats,
or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings (a) in the City of London and with a total floorspace of more than 30,000 square metres, or
(b) in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than
20,000 square metres, or
(c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.
2. In paragraph 1 "Central London" means the area bounded by the outer edge of the red line
on a map entitled "Map of Central London referred to in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor
of London) Order 2000" of which prints, dated 25th May 2000 and signed by a Director in the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, are deposited and available for
inspection at (a) the principal office of Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions;
(b) the Government Office for London;
(c) the principal office of the Mayor; and
(d) the principal office of the local planning authority for each London borough.
Category 1C
1. Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building in respect of which one
or more of the following conditions is met (a) the building is more than 25 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames,
(b) the building is more than 75 metres high and in the City of London,
(c) the building is more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London.
2. A building is adjacent to the River Thames for the purposes of paragraph 1(a) -
(a) if the building is wholly or partly on a site which falls within an area identified as a Thames
Policy Area in the development plan, or
(b) where no such area is so identified in respect of the relevant part of the River Thames, if the
building is wholly or partly on a site which falls within the Thames Policy Area being the area
bounded by the outer edge of the red line on the set of maps numbered 1 to 3 entitled "Maps of
the Thames Policy Area referred to in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order
2000" of which prints, dated 25th May 2000 and signed by a Director in the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, are deposited and available for inspection at (i) the principal office of Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions;
(ii) the Government Office for London;
(iii) the principal office of the Mayor; and
(iv) the principal office of the local planning authority for each London borough.
3. Any part of a building below ground level shall be ignored for the purposes of paragraph 1.
Category 1D
1. Development which comprises or includes the alteration of an existing building where (a) the development would increase the height of the building by more than 15 metres; and
(b) the building would, on completion of the development, be higher than a relevant threshold set
out in paragraph 1 of Category 1C.
PART II: MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE
Category 2A
1. Development which comprises or includes mining operations where the development
occupies more than 10 hectares.
2. In paragraph 1 "mining operations" means the winning and working of minerals in, on or
under land, whether by surface or underground working.
Category 2B
1. Waste development to provide an installation with capacity for a throughput of more than
50,000 tonnes per annum of waste produced outside the land in respect of which planning
permission is sought.
2. In paragraph 1 "waste development" means any operational development designed to be
used wholly or mainly for the purpose of, or a material change of use to, treating, keeping,
processing or disposing of refuse or waste materials.
Category 2C
1. Development to provide (a) an aircraft runway;
(b) a heliport (including a floating heliport or a helipad on a building);
(c) an air passenger terminal at an airport;
(d) a railway station;
(e) a tramway, an underground, surface or elevated railway, or a cable car;
(f) a bus or coach station;
(g) an installation for a use within Class B8 (storage or distribution) of the Schedule to the Use
Classes Order where the development would occupy more than 4 hectares;
(h) a crossing over or under the River Thames; or
(i) a passenger pier on the River Thames.
2. Development to alter an air passenger terminal to increase its capacity by more than
500,000 passengers per year.
Appendix Two
DRAFT RESPONSE TO THE DCLG CONSULTATION ON CHANGES TO THE MAYOR OF
LONDON ORDER 2000
London Councils was formerly known as the Association of London Government. The new name,
effective from 1 October 2006, was chosen to reflect more accurately the membership.
General Comments
London Councils does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to give the Mayor the power to
grant approval for certain strategic applications. London Councils has a number of serious
concerns about any extension of the Mayor’s planning powers, and has already raised them in its
response to the Government consultation: ‘The Greater London Authority – The Government’s
proposals for additional powers and responsibilities for the Mayor and the Assembly’. They are
outlined below:
1. London boroughs are best placed to weigh up local needs and sensitivities when
considering big planning applications. The proposal to transfer additional development
control powers to the Mayor would tip the emphasis towards strategic considerations. The
boroughs have tried and tested processes to consult with residents and businesses, to
ensure that big decisions affecting a local community are taken within that community.
There seems to be no advantage in moving the decision-making process further away
from an established system.
2. Giving the Mayor responsibility for making the big planning decisions would place too
much control in the hands of one single individual. It would further remove local
communities from the decision-making process and reduce democratic accountability.
3. Any transfer of development control powers to the Mayor will make the planning system
more complex, and will create delays at a time when the Government wants to streamline
the planning system. The Government and local planning authorities across the country
have spent considerable time in overhauling the planning system through the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The objectives of the reform were to simplify the
system and speed up delivery. This new system is still bedding down and further major
changes will create confusion and hamper attempts to meet these objectives.
4. London Councils has concerns about the effectiveness and value for money of the
Mayor’s current involvement in planning applications. Until an analysis of his performance
is carried out it would be wrong to even consider giving him additional powers.
5. In contrast, London local authorities are performing well, both in terms of their Best Value
Performance Indicators for the speed of dealing with major planning applications and for
delivering on housing targets. The latest figures (both for the quarter, and the year,
ending 31 March 2006) show that 24 of the 33 London councils met the target of dealing
with 60 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks. Overall, the London average for
dealing with major applications within 13 weeks was 68 per cent. On housing targets,
statistics for 2004/05 (the latest available) show that London delivered 27,364 homes, 119
per cent of the target.
The Panel Inspectors Report on the Early Alterations to the London Plan confirmed that
the London boroughs are doing their part in facilitating housing delivery in the capital. The
Panel noted that “It seems that the Mayor and the boroughs are equally committed to
meeting the higher level of housing provision demanded by the Draft Early Alterations,”
and “It seems that the position flowing from the March 2006 Housing Survey shows the
healthiest pipeline of planning permissions for a considerable time. The Mayor confirms
this to be the case.” (Taken from the ‘Draft Early Alterations to the London Plan
Examination in Public 2006 Panel Report’ published 19 September 2006). Further
information on boroughs; planning performance is attached as Annexe A’.
6. London Councils is concerned that such improvements will be set back by the proposals
contained in this consultation.
7. When applications have been referred to the Mayor under the current regulations, there
have been only a small number of cases where the boroughs and the Mayor have failed
to reach agreement. In many of those cases (where the Mayor has directed refusal), the
borough’s position has been upheld on appeal. It would be disproportionate and
unjustified to give the Mayor the discretion to take over potentially a large number of
planning applications, when the evidence that important strategic developments for
London are being frustrated, due to inappropriate refusals of permission by the boroughs,
is very limited or non-existent.
Response to consultation questions
Consultation Q1: Do you agree with the Government’s proposals on thresholds for referral of
planning applications to the Mayor?
8. London Councils does not agree with the Government’s proposals on thresholds for
referral of planning applications to the Mayor. London Councils would in particular like to
highlight an anomaly that could occur. With the current definition of a strategic application
and the setting of thresholds, a developer may put forward a scheme of just under the
upper limit that, after initial discussions with the local authority, appears unlikely to get
approval from the local authority. The developer could then withdraw the application and
amend the scheme design to take it above the threshold. Thus bypassing the local
authority and going straight to the Mayor. If the new arrangements allow developers to
take advantage of the system in this way, the effect will be to undermine the authority of
boroughs and create further delays.
9. London Councils has the following comments to make specifically on the proposed
changes to thresholds:
Proposed thresholds for dealing with waste applications 1
10. The decision to introduce thresholds at which waste planning applications should be
referred to the Mayor now means that the Mayor could have responsibility for many
facilities which are purely local in nature. It should be noted that the DCLG announcement
on the proposals for extra powers for the Mayor stated that, on waste planning:
1
Hazardous waste at 5,000 tonnes throughput per year; Non-hazardous waste at 50,000 tonnes
per year; Sites for hazardous or non-hazardous waste over 1 hectare
And for departures from borough Development Plan documents: Hazardous waste at 2,000
tonnes throughput per year; Non-hazardous waste at 20,000 tonnes per year; Sites for
hazardous or non-hazardous waste over 0.5 hectare
‘Effective planning for waste facilities in London is critically important. The
Government intends that the Mayor should have discretion to decide those
planning applications for waste facilities which are strategically important and
critical to implementing his waste strategy.’
11. However, according to the London Councils’s ‘Meeting the Waste Challenge – A Guide to
Waste Planning in London’ document, compiled in association with GOL, London
Remade and the Environment Agency, the average size of most waste management
facilities would be 0.8 hectares or greater (the average indicative size of a small Materials
Recovery Facility (according to the London Councils’s Meeting the Waste Challenge).
Thus, if the waste application definitions are revised as suggested in the consultation, the
Mayor could be the determining authority for a significant proportion of waste applications.
This does not meet the intention of the DCLG as outlined above. It should be up to the
local planning authority to determine the location of facilities that serve local communities.
Therefore, the thresholds should be based on the average size for each different type of
facilities (and this will differ according to the type of facility). London Councils requests
that further work is done to identify and classify facilities according to size and type in
order to ensure that, if thresholds are set, it is only for applications of a strategic nature.
12. London Councils does not believe that the thresholds proposed for waste applications
that are departure from Development Plan Documents (DPD) is appropriate. These
thresholds should actually be higher than those proposed for the main thresholds. This is
because the Mayor has the opportunity to review the borough development plan through
the established planning process. The borough plan must be in general conformity with
the London Plan. Therefore, any applications that are departures from the DPD, unless
they are particularly strategic, should be for the borough to determine, within the
framework set out by its accepted development plan.
13. Strategic policy to achieve the waste objectives for London should be established and
tested by the London Plan process, rather than by transferring planning applications to
the Mayor.
Proposed thresholds for dealing with tram station applications
14. London Councils does not consider that all tram stations are strategic. Only tram stations
located as part of interchanges are strategic to the transport network. As such, only these
stations should be classed as strategic.
Proposed thresholds for dealing with Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) applications
15. London Councils does not consider that there is a need to for threshold to be removed
and all applications on MOL be transferred to the Mayor. All boroughs are well aware of
the designation for MOL and the need for MOL to be protected. There is no strategic
justification for this change.
16. London Councils also considers that may be appropriate to consider raising the threshold
in other areas of planning to ensure that the Mayor’s involvement is only at the highest
strategic level. The DCLG is urged to work with the London Councils and GLA to consider
where such changes may be appropriate.
Other concerns on using thresholds
17. London Councils is extremely concerned over the impact of the decision to give the
Mayor power to grant approval to tall buildings over a certain height (25m if adjacent to
the River Thames, 30m in the City of London and 75m elsewhere). The Mayor’s
preference for tall buildings is well documented. There have been a number of recent
cases where the local authority has refused a planning application for a tall building
because it was completely inappropriate to the surrounding area (Lot’s Road in Chelsea
and Lovell’s Wharf in Greenwich). It is understood that had the Mayor had the power to
grant approval in these cases, he would have done so. However, this would have resulted
in a development completely inappropriate for the local community.
18. The Mayor currently has the power to direct refusal of schemes involving tall buildings,
since such buildings could undermine the achievement of other strategic planning
objectives, such as the preservation of important views across London. However, it is not
clear what strategic objectives could be advanced by giving the Mayor power to approve,
over the opposition of local authorities, schemes which are considered strategic because
of building height. Such schemes may not exceed the strategic thresholds for housing
units or floor space.
19. The DCLG should also consider whether other specific thresholds within the Mayor of
London Order 2000 need to be amended to reflect other changing circumstances. London
Councils believes that it may be appropriate to consider raising other thresholds to ensure
that boroughs are able to balance strategic aims with local policy objectives to best meet
the needs of their local areas. For example, it may be appropriate to consider whether the
commercial development threshold outside central London should be raised from its
present 15,000 square metres. London Councils has expressed concerns to the GLA in
its consultation on Sub Regional Development Frameworks and on the early alterations to
the London Plan that the Mayor is not giving enough emphasis and encouragement to
economic growth and development in parts of outer London. Whilst the London Councils
agrees that central London is of great importance in economic terms, growth in outer
London economies also needs to be encouraged. The Assembly version of the Further
Alterations to the London Plan has not allayed these concerns. The proposal to reclassify
‘suburb’s as ‘residential areas’ increases concern that the Mayor is not doing enough to
encourage economic development in parts of outer London, without which there will be an
increase in journeys to work which is fundamentally unsustainable. Therefore the
increasing of the threshold for commercial development may help to redress this. London
Councils suggests that the Mayor should be encouraged to include this issue for review
within the next round of Sub Regional Development Frameworks. This will help to take
forward further research to identify whether such a change would be appropriate.
The Policy Test
Consultation Q2: Do you consider this [policy] test provides a clear basis for the Mayor to decide
whether he should take over a planning application?
20. The proposed policy test is extremely vague over where the Mayor could intervene and
take over a planning application. It is also subjective with a significant amount of
emphasis on the Mayor’s own interpretation of the situation.
Need for a counter-balance to protect borough interests
21. The first policy test 2 that the application could significantly impact on the implementation
of specific London Plan policies has no counter-balance. For example, a borough may
turn down a planning application for housing development that does not provide sufficient
mix and type of housing to meet that borough’s housing requirements. However, if the
Mayor feels that this application is needed to ensure his housing targets – based solely
on unit numbers and not appropriate type of housing – will be met, is he able to take on
the decision making for such an application? It appears that the Mayor’s interpretation of
what is a ‘significant impact on specific London Plan policies’ will have greater weight that
a borough’s own determination of what is appropriate for their own area – in the example
above, a suitable mix of housing type and size. Additionally, the Mayor should be asked
to consider the impact of the proposed application on both the London Plan and the
borough’s own Development Plan Document. This will help to ensure that the Mayor is
considering all aspects of the planning system.
Need for a robust and transparent policy process
22. The second test is whether an application has significant effects wider than a single
borough. Firstly, many applications on or near to borough boundaries will impact across
administrative borders. Secondly, environmental and transport impacts will affect more
than one borough for many applications. This test is too vague and open to
misinterpretation by the Mayor. Whilst it is understood that the Mayor will have to publish
his rationale for taking over an application, the London Councils is concerned that this
could be too late in the process. A robust and transparent policy test is needed from the
outset. A definition of what constitutes ‘significant impact’ is necessary in order to make
the process more transparent.
Need for a more appropriate mechanism for boroughs to challenge the Mayor
23. The only way to challenge the Mayor’s decision would be through the courts. The
arrangements are likely to lead to potential judicial reviews, especially where both the
local planning authority and the public are opposed. The requirement that the Mayor
should not have previously shown support for the project is also likely to be open to
interpretation and a source of challenge. This therefore gives rise to further concerns over
the appropriateness of these tests. London Councils also believes that the proposal to
leave judicial review as the only way to challenge the Mayor’s decision to take over an
application, rather than giving a role to the Secretary of State or some other arbiter,
should be re-considered.
Need for a narrower definition of applications that could be taken over by the Mayor
24. The DCLG has stated that it considers that the Mayor would only take over a small
number of applications. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
said in the 13 July 2006 meeting with the Chairman of the London Councils that the
Government wanted the Mayor to be concerned only with broad strategy and not ‘specific
streets’. However, the policy tests are sufficiently subjective (and broad) for the Mayor to
take over a wide range of planning applications. Additionally, as the Mayor does not
currently have the Development Control capability to deal with such applications, he will
have to establish this function within the GLA. As a result, after setting up such a function,
he may well be more inclined to make use of it and take over an increasingly larger
number of applications. This could include cases where, although the local planning
2
Does the planning application raise issues of a nature and scale that would significantly impact on the
implementation of specific London Plan policies?
authority is supportive of the application, the Mayor wishes to take it over in order to
control the content of any Section 106 agreement, which the local authority would
nevertheless be required to enforce. This is completely inappropriate and the subsequent
policy test must ensure that this eventuality is precluded.
25. London Councils considers that the policy test should be amended to reflect more
accurately the stated objective of extending the Mayor’s development control powers in
paragraph 3.3.10 of DCLG’s July Policy Statement. This objective was to “to decide a
small number of the most strategically important planning applications in London so as to
ensure decision-making takes place at the most appropriate level and regional planning
policies are fully taken into account.” This means that the focus of the policy test should
be on the strategic importance of the development itself for implementation of the London
Plan, and not for the application of individual London Plan policies. There are over 180
policies listed in the index to the London Plan. As currently drafted the policy test would
allow the Mayor to take over an application if it would significantly impact on the
implementation of any of them.
26. All applications of sufficient size to be referred to the Mayor will inevitably have significant
effects for the implementation of the London Plan. If it is genuinely the intention that the
Mayor should only take over a small number of applications, the policy should distinguish
those which are of special importance from those where the strategic considerations can
be considered by the borough in the usual way. Finally, since the intention in paragraph
29 of the consultation paper appears that both aspects of the test should be met, for
clarity they should be combined.
27. London Councils would therefore propose for further discussion the following modified
version of the policy test:
”Does the planning application propose a development which raises strategic issues of a
nature and scale that are of special importance for the implementation of the London
Plan, and which will have important effects on more than one borough?”
Need for more explanation of how a borough’s record in dealing with applications would be
taken into account
28. The reference to a borough’s record in dealing with previous applications is unclear. Does
this refer to speed of dealing with the application or the actual outcome? This must be
clarified. It is certainly not appropriate to use a borough’s previous ‘track record’ as this is
not a recognised or appropriate mechanism for determining regional government
involvement in the planning system. No applications are identical and there are a number
of variables with each one. The type of applications which would justify being taken over
by the Mayor will almost always be unique. Therefore, it is not appropriate to deal with an
application solely on how the authority has dealt with similar applications previously as
there will be always be elements unique to a particular application.
Changes to procedures
Consultation Q3: Do you agree with the new procedures for handling planning applications in
London?
29. London Councils does not feel that the new procedures are the correct mechanism for
handling planning applications in London. Firstly, the policy test as outlined above does
not provide a clear path for where the Mayor should take over an application. Further
concerns include:
 If the Mayor is to make decisions on certain strategic applications like a local planning
authority, he should be expected to act like a local planning authority. He should make
his planning decisions in public, with a right of representation for all concerned
stakeholders. His decisions should be based on a published report which is open to
scrutiny and which demonstrates how he has taken account of all the relevant
development plan policies, and of responses to consultation on the application. The
current proposals do not provide for such an open and transparent process of
decision-making. This is contrary to the objectives of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004. Furthermore, under current call-in arrangements, there is scope
for the Secretary of State to resolve contentious cases under the scrutiny of a public
inquiry. The proposed arrangements for London would remove this transparency from
the most important and contentious planning applications, by allowing them to be
determined by one individual (currently in private) with no external challenge. This will
inevitably lead to more calls from local planning authorities and others for such
applications to be called in by the Government. This is likely to delay rather than
expedite decisions.
 The proposed arrangements could mean that different applications on the same site
would be determined by different authorities, increasing confusion and possible
conflict.
 Additionally, the DCLG announcement states that consultations for applications taken
over by the Mayor will still be carried out by the London borough. Should the Mayor
have involvement in more applications as a result of a lowering of the strategic
threshold, boroughs will have to carry out more consultations for applications where
they are not the decision making body. This could undermine the credibility of
borough-led consultations and be a further pressure on borough resources
30. London Councils is concerned that the new policies and procedures put the onus on
London boroughs to outline to the Mayor the strategic issues raised by an application. It
should be the role of the Mayor to initially identify why he feels justified in taking over the
decision making role of an application. There then should be scope for a borough to
challenge this. It is not appropriate for the Mayor to take over an application because he
thinks that the borough may be minded to refuse it, based on their track record. London
Councils suggests that the borough assessment of strategic issues should also indicate
whether at that stage the borough is (a) likely to approve the application subject to
conditions and a legal agreement, (b) likely to refuse the application or (c) as yet
undecided. Since the Mayor is already able to direct refusal on applications referred to
him, he should not be able to take over applications which the borough indicates that it is
likely to approve.
31. The Mayor’s potential involvement in Section 106 agreements could actually mean
several additional parties to an agreement if the GLA functional bodies such as TfL were
individually to be involved. It would further unnecessarily complicate what can currently be
a main source of delay in determining planning applications. Additional legal costs arising
from more complex agreements would be a further cost on development.
32. The Government has been moving progressively towards a cost recovery basis for
planning fees. This position has not been reached yet, but it is essential that any review of
fees should reflect the costs of implementing the new arrangements. Even if an
application is called in by the Mayor, the costs likely to be incurred by the local planning
authority are likely to be at least as high as if they had determined the case themselves.
They should not, therefore, lose any of the fee.
33. There is concern that the processes put forward will add to the time taken for decision
making on strategic planning applications. Boroughs and other stakeholders have been
working hard to speed up delivery of the planning system.
Conclusion
34. The proposals are not sufficiently transparent or specific to ensure that these changes to
the planning system will work fairly, with sufficient local accountability.
35. For these reasons, the London Councils suggests that the DCLG should enter into
discussions with the London Councils and the London boroughs to identify how these
could be developed further to best meet the needs of the planning system.
Annexe A
London Borough’s performance in planning
1 Turn around of planning applications
The Department for Communities and Local Government has set the following targets for local
authorities in dealing with planning applications:



60% of major applications to be dealt with in 13 weeks
65% of minor applications to be dealt with in 8 weeks
80% of all other applications to be dealt with in 8 weeks
London’s performance for the quarter ending 31 March 2006 is as follows:



Overall proportion of major applications dealt with inside the 13 week deadline: 68% (24
boroughs met the target)
Overall proportion of minor applications dealt with inside the 8 week deadline: 77% (31
boroughs met the target)
Overall proportion of other applications dealt with inside the 8 week deadline: 89% (28
boroughs met the target)
This is a continuing trend, with the figures for the year ending 31 March 2006 for the London
boroughs overall as follows:



Overall proportion of major applications dealt with inside the 13 week deadline: 68% (24
boroughs met the target)
Overall proportion of minor applications dealt with inside the 8 week deadline: 78% (33
boroughs met the target)
Overall proportion of other applications dealt with inside the 8 week deadline: 88% (29
boroughs met the target)
2 Housing delivery
Housing Completion for 2003/4
Conventional Supply
Non Self Contained Provision
Vacants Returning to Use
Total
Current London Plan Target
Performance against Target
21,045
1,276
3,585
25,906
23,000
113%
Housing Completion for 2004/5
Conventional Supply
Non Self Contained Provision
Vacants Returning to Use
22,885
2,591
1,888
Total
London Plan Target
23,000
Performance against London Plan Target
27,364
119%
Figures for the pipeline of planning approvals are as follows:


Net Approvals for 2003/04 were 41,439 (197% of the GLA guideline figure)
Net Approvals for 2004/05 were 51,477 (245% of the GLA guideline figure)