Forum Topic

Livingstone's new powers -?

The TW8 newslines have noted Hounslow's objection to the new powers the Mayor wants over planning issues. The immediacy of the effects of such can be gauged by the fact that the last two major developments the Council turned down have had their schemes supported by the Mayor, even to voluntary support at Public Inquiries in opposition to the Council.If you have a view, the following message I received this evening may assist you making it heard -12 days to stop the Mayor's power grab Most Londoners are still not aware that the Government's consultation on new planning powers for the Mayor of London ends on the 2nd of November. It is very important that Londoners understand how these proposed changes would affect them and respond to this consultation.In July the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Ruth Kelly announced that she was giving a raft of new powers to the Mayor over planning, housing and waste management. A Bill to legislate for the changes is expected to be introduced into Parliament in November 2006.Under the proposals the Mayor will become a one-man planning authority able to approve any planning application considered "strategic" regardless of the wishes of local councillors and local communities. He will be able to overrule any council's decision and effectively deprive local communities of their ability to influence what gets built in their neighbourhood.The definition of "strategic" could also be widened, enabling the Mayor to take over planning decisions simply because a local council will not decide a scheme the way the Mayor wants it decided. The Mayor will also be able to force boroughs to change their local development plans to conform with his planning priorities and override local consultations on planning policies.Most people believe that the Mayor already has sufficient powers in being able to direct refusal of a planning application. The 33 London councils have tried and tested consultation processes to involve local residents and businesses in the decision-making process. Local councillors take their quasi-judicial powers seriously and within planning law. Also the Secretary of State has the power to call-in any application of more than local importance. The process of calling-in involves public inquiry which gives local residents a chance to be heard by an inspector. Under the new legislation anyone objecting to the planning application taken over by the Mayor will be denied their right to a fair hearing. Government decision to strip powers away from locally elected London councils and hand them to Mayor Livingstone is an attack on local democracy. These proposals would give the Mayor an unprecedented power and control over day-to-day lives of Londoners. The London Assembly had been given few extra scrutiny powers. Big decisions affecting a local community should be taken within that community, by people accountable to the community. That is the principle of local democracy. There are no checks and balances in giving such powers to a sole individual. Mr Livingstone's track record gives little confidence that he will listen to local residents when it comes to the local dimension of planning matters or that he will be able to separate his strategic interests from being a one-man planning authority. The Mayor has a record of promoting certain types of development, such as tall buildings. This could jeopardise his ability to make objective decisions on specific proposals and could also lead to developers creating designs that they think will please the Mayor. Many Londoners believe that these new powers have given the green light to a high rise London and would mean an explosion in tower blocks and skyscrapers across the capital that local councils would never have permitted. The City of London warned that "UK planning laws and procedures are complicated enough already. To add new layers of complication in central London, with no discernible benefit to London's economy and prosperity, is a real worry." Setting up a new planning bureaucracy at City Hall would also mean Londoners can expect a rise in their council tax bills.The Government has already consulted on these new powers for the Mayor in July. A summary of the responses reveals that  the planning proposals attracted the greatest interest among respondents to the consultation. Most supported no change, or only minimal change, to the current arrangements.Also the survey of a thousand Londoners commissioned by the Association of London Government on behalf of London's 33 local authorities reveals that the majority of the capital's residents disagree with Government plans to give the Mayor of London powers over strategic planning applications in London. These opinions were completely ignored by the Government.Londoners should write to DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) raising their objections to policy proposals that will further reduce the power of local communities to shape their own futures.The current consultation asks Londoners for comments on the Government's proposals in three specific areas: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? You can read this consultation paper online at the DCLG website:www.communities.gov.uk/consultationshttp://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1501733 Let's use the 14 days that are left to send a clear message to the Government: No more power to Ken!Please send your response to the Government: The existing thresholds for referral of planning applications to the Mayor are sufficient. The existing policy test for the Mayor to refuse a planning application is sufficient, I strongly object to the Mayor being able to take over decision on a planning application from local authorities. I strongly object to the new procedures for handling planning applications in London. Big decisions affecting a local community should be taken within that community, by people accountable to the community. I do not believe the decisions made by the Mayor on so called 'strategic' applications would be objective. The new procedures would mean local residents would be denied their right to a fair hearing. They would also add a new, costly layer of beaurocracy which would only benefit a small number of big developers to the disadvantage of ordinary Londoners. The Mayor of London should not be given the power to take over strategic planning applications from local authorities.Your feedback should be sent to: gla.review@communities.gsi.gov.ukOr write to:Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MPSecretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local GovernmentEland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5DU

Nigel Moore ● 6795d18 Comments

Still time to email comments on the 3 basic Q's to:gla.review@communities.gsi.gov.ukIf Ken had had these powers already, the Council could never have made the Inspectorate-upheld decision to reject St George's plans for the Kew Bridge site, nor could they have been in the position to reflect local views in rejecting the Commerce Road proposals.In both cases Ken has come out in strong support for the developers in opposition to the Council. No one having seen the reports on which he ostensibly bases those decisions can be comforted by the idea that he will listen to local viewpoints or representations.

Nigel Moore ● 6788d

'DUSTBIN OF HISTORY; seems to come to mind there Jim.

Colin Vaughan ● 6791d

Agreed? How does Old Ken get away with so many dictatorial things...or is he misjudged..and is, in fact, just what Londoners need?

Jim Lawes ● 6791d

'Daffy' Ruth's non joined up thinking maybe Vanessa??

Colin Vaughan ● 6791d

What I cannot understand is that at the same time as this grab for more power where planning is concerned the Government is making noises about handing powers back to local authorities. Quite how these two things fit I have no idea - they would seem to be in direct opposition to one another. Planning is so fundamental to local areas that it seems crazy not to give local representatives the final word, after all you can always chuck them out when the elections roll around if you feel they've cocked-up, the link to the Mayor of London might not always be that apparent to people not familiar with these things.

Vanessa Smith ● 6791d

Agreeing with all the foregoing comments, the fact remains that an opportunity exists to register opposition to Ken's bid for centralised power, through contribution to the consultation on the matter.Voicing opinions through the medium of this forum is one thing, voicing them where it might count is another. Are you all prepared to put virtual pen to virtual paper and register your views to the body that counts?There's a slightly weird slant to the public perception where Mr Livingstone is comcerned. The press and TW8 contributors cannot get away from the "Red Ken" sobriquet. As someone remarked a couple of nights ago, this works for him to camouflage the fact that his bids for ever increasing centralised power reveals his character in British political terms, to be the most extreme right since Mosley. The causes espoused are secondary to the power demanded to implement them on one man's whim.Keith's comments are the most pertinent so far, as applicable nationally as locally. Have your say here by all means, but don't forget to tell government also.

Nigel Moore ● 6793d

What you all have got to remember is that a week is a long time in Politics. Ken is no fool, he upsets various factions now, but cynically calculates that by the time of the next election, most voters will have forgotten. Even the 'old lady 'vote will still vote for the 'cheekie chappie' even though he culled their beloved pidgoens.

Colin Vaughan ● 6793d

Agreed---His Red-ness is definitely losing it.It's an absolute insult to the people who suffered under the tyranny of the nazis and a pathetic attempt to curry favour with Muslims whilst vilifying ordinary,law abiding and reasonable Brits.He should be ashamed,if he has a sense of shame that is.

Keith Iddon ● 6793d

On a slightly different tack - sorry - always been a supporter of Ken - but yesterday he really outdid all previous utterances - that crack about Muslims being treated like the Jews under the Nazis was the biggest load of b*****s I have ever heard. Has he forgotten what we went to war for? I think he must be losing the plot in his attempts to be oh so P.C. Pathetic and not worthy of the Mayor of our capital city.

Vanessa Smith ● 6793d

"Quite how she has been promoted to her position escapes me."Maybe Tony Blair is a secret member of Opus Dei and they scourge each other in private (Ooh no, I really don't want to think about that!!)To be honest, he will probably promote anyone who still sticks with him at this stage!

John Coxall ● 6794d

Well as she cocked up education, on which she was totally out of her depth Vanessa, I suppose planning was an obvious move seeing she could'nt be worse than the previous encumbant, who horror of horrors has just been sent abroad on a mission to meet the new United Nations Chief,Britain's reputation is about to sink to a new low, if that is possible, you could'nt make it up!!

Colin Vaughan ● 6794d

Personally I wouldn't let that daffy Ruth Kelly feed my cats - let alone be involved in something like local planning issues. Quite how she has been promoted to her position escapes me.

Vanessa Smith ● 6794d

Agreed, nonetheless the present system at least allows for community involvement at the earliest stage, with community input also possible at Inquiry stage in case of appeal. Even the Sec. of State’s over-ruling both stages can be challenged on the basis of the regard given to local and London policies, (as Dido Berkeley has demonstrated).Removing a stage can only make the last resort that much more difficult.

Nigel Moore ● 6794d

Your probably right John about the major projects. However what is concerning many people is the 'infilling' of land between existing housing that are somehow considered 'brownfield' sites, when they are no such thing. I would'nt trust Ms Kelly to back the unfortunates in such cases. She has a record of vociferous support for people in her own constituency over things of that nature, but seems hypocritally unsympathetic to anyone outside her own back yard especially it seems in the grossly overcrowded South-East Region. She just seems to be carrying on with Prescott, her predecesors blind folly.

Colin Vaughan ● 6794d

Loss of local decision making powers is clearly a concern. However, let's remember that the Government (via Ruth Kelly's office) has the power either to overturn a planning approval granted by a local authority or to approve an application that has previously been refused locally. The key decisions that affect our quality of life - Terminal 5, a possible 3rd runway, major development in the Green Belt etc. - are never left to local authorities.

John Connelly ● 6794d

To answer my own question...he polled  39%of a 36% turnout as 1st choice...the moral of the story I suppose is USE YOUR VOTE.I am no mathematician but isn't that about 14% of the electorate...surely not enough to take over the known universe?

Keith Iddon ● 6795d

Anyone know how many people actually voted for his Ken-ness and what % of the electorate it was ?(either election will do)

Keith Iddon ● 6795d

I agree with you Nigel, certainly I think that whatever political colour the Mayor happens to be this move to grant these extra power should be stopped dead in its tracks. We need more local accountability not less. I see this as an eventual move towards Livingstone's dream of 4 Super Boroughs.

Colin Vaughan ● 6795d