Agenda item

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat 

Contact: Joanna Brown, [email protected], and Teresa Young, [email protected], both tel: 020 7983 6559.

 

The Assembly is asked to consider the motions submitted by Assembly Members.

12.1  Stephen Knight AM moved and Tom Copley AM seconded the following motion:

 

“This Assembly notes:

 

i)  That overseas investment continues to dominate London’s property market, with over 60 percent of new build homes in central London now being sold to overseas purchasers¹;

 

ii)  That across London approximately a third of buyers are now from overseas²; and

 

iii)  That firm evidence on the effects of overseas investment on the London property market is very limited³.

 

This Assembly further notes the Mayor’s response to the motion passed by the Assembly on 13 March 2013, but regrets his failure to to address the issues raised.⁴

 

This Assembly believes the Mayor has a duty – as the executive of the strategic authority for London – to understand the impact of overseas investment on London’s unique housing market and to ensure that homes remain affordable for local people to buy and rent. 

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to instruct his Chief Economic Advisor to undertake research into the extent to which properties held by investors domiciled abroad are kept empty, and the effects of overseas investment on the price, affordability and supply of homes across London as a matter of urgency. “

 

12.2  Upon being put to the vote, the motion in the name of Stephen Knight AM, namely:

 

“This Assembly notes:

 

i)  That overseas investment continues to dominate London’s property market, with over 60 percent of new build homes in central London now being sold to overseas purchasers[1];

 

ii)  That across London approximately a third of buyers are now from overseas[2]; and

 

iii)  That firm evidence on the effects of overseas investment on the London property market is very limited[3].

 

This Assembly further notes the Mayor’s response to the motion passed by the Assembly on 13 March 2013, but regrets his failure to to address the issues raised.[4]

 

This Assembly believes the Mayor has a duty – as the executive of the strategic authority for London – to understand the impact of overseas investment on London’s unique housing market and to ensure that homes remain affordable for local people to buy and rent. 

 

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to instruct his Chief Economic Advisor to undertake research into the extent to which properties held by investors domiciled abroad are kept empty, and the effects of overseas investment on the price, affordability and supply of homes across London as a matter of urgency. “

 

  was agreed (14 votes cast in favour and 7 against).

 

 

12.3  Darren Johnson AM moved and Nicky Gavron AM seconded the following motion:

 

“This Assembly notes that the Mayor of London has approved the Earls Court Opportunity Area plans, which will mean that:

 

·  the Earls Court exhibition centres will be demolished in the absence of a full, independent economic impact assessment, and in the face of opposition from the event organisers industry;

·  the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates will be unnecessarily demolished, denying the requests of the current residents to take over and manage their own estates, and most of the new homes will be unaffordable to ordinary Londoners; and

·  the Lille Bridge Depot will be demolished without a proper assessment of what the loss would mean to London transport and before a suitable replacement location has been identified, threatening 550 manufacturing jobs.

 

This Assembly therefore condemns the Mayor of London’s decision, and condemns the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for refusing to call in the application for a public inquiry.”

 

This Assembly considers that these decisions are grave mistakes and calls on the Mayor of London, when deciding future planning applications on major regeneration projects, to ensure that he gives proper consideration and due weight to the full economic, social and environmental implications of the applicant’s plans.” 

 

12.4  The following amendment was moved by Nicky Gavron AM and seconded by Tom Copley AM:

 

“This Assembly notes that the Mayor of London has approved the Earls Court Opportunity Area plans, which will mean that:

 

·  the Earls Court exhibition centres will be demolished in the absence of a full, independent economic impact assessment, and in the face of opposition from the event organisers industry;

·  the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates will be unnecessarily demolished, denying the requests of the current residents to take over and manage their own estates, and new homes will be unaffordable to ordinary Londoners ; and

·  the Lillie Bridge Depot will be demolished without a proper assessment of what the loss would mean to London transport and before a suitable replacement location has been identified, threatening 550 manufacturing jobs.

 

TfL should not enter a joint venture to develop these sites until:

 

·  suitable alternative exhibition space has been established for Earls Court;

·  relocation of the Lillie Bridge Depot is secured;

·  TfL is certain it is getting best value for its land, which could be achieved through an open tendering or an agreement to retain an interest in the development;

·  the developer agrees a review mechanism under which an increase in the site value would require a proportional increase in affordable housing provision; and

·  there is certainty that all necessary land has been acquired by the developer and that legal action has been exhausted.

 

This Assembly therefore condemns the Mayor of London’s decision, and condemns the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government for refusing to call in the application for a public inquiry.

 

This Assembly considers that these decisions are grave mistakes and calls on the Mayor of London, when deciding future planning applications on major regeneration projects, ensure that he gives proper consideration and due weight to the full economic, social and environmental implications of the applicant’s plans. On the Earls Court site in particular, he must ensure that TfL resolves the issues outlined above before moving ahead.

 

12.5  In accordance with Standing Order 3.6A(2), Darren Johnson AM indicated that he would accept the amendment.

 

12.6  Upon being put to the vote, the amended motion in the name of Darren Johnson AM, namely:

 

“This Assembly notes that the Mayor of London has approved the Earls Court Opportunity Area plans, which will mean that:

 

·  the Earls Court exhibition centres will be demolished in the absence of a full, independent economic impact assessment, and in the face of opposition from the event organisers industry;

·  the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates will be unnecessarily demolished, denying the requests of the current residents to take over and manage their own estates, and new homes will be unaffordable to ordinary Londoners ; and

·  the Lillie Bridge Depot will be demolished without a proper assessment of what the loss would mean to London transport and before a suitable replacement location has been identified, threatening 550 manufacturing jobs.

 

  TfL should not enter a joint venture to develop these sites until:

 

·  suitable alternative exhibition space has been established for Earls Court;

·  relocation of the Lillie Bridge Depot is secured;

·  TfL is certain it is getting best value for its land, which could be achieved through an open tendering or an agreement to retain an interest in the development;

·  the developer agrees a review mechanism under which an increase in the site value would require a proportional increase in affordable housing provision; and

·  there is certainty that all necessary land has been acquired by the developer and that legal action has been exhausted.

 

This Assembly therefore condemns the Mayor of London’s decision, and condemns the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government for refusing to call in the application for a public inquiry.

 

This Assembly considers that these decisions are grave mistakes and calls on the Mayor of London, when deciding future planning applications on major regeneration projects, ensure that he gives proper consideration and due weight to the full economic, social and environmental implications of the applicant’s plans. On the Earls Court site in particular, he must ensure that TfL resolves the issues outlined above before moving ahead.

 

  was agreed (14 votes cast in favour, 7 votes against).

 

 

12.7  Steve O’Connell AM moved and Jenny Jones AM seconded the following motion:

 

“The Assembly notes the important role of the Metropolitan Police Wildlife Crime Unit (WCU) in tackling wildlife crime in London. This includes the illegal sale of endangered species and parts of animals such as tortoises, elephants and rhinos, illegal fishing and poaching, badger baiting, and acts of harm to local wildlife such as swans, deer and birds. Such incidents are criminal and can sometimes be linked to other forms of criminality, including serious organised crime.

 

The Assembly further notes that, for the past two years, the WCU has been partially funded by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), but that this funding will no longer be available from April 2014.

 

The Assembly believes that it is important that London continues to be able to tackle wildlife crime effectively. The Assembly therefore calls upon the Mayor to ensure that sufficient funding is available from April 2014 so that the work of the WCU can continue. The Assembly further calls upon the Mayor to ensure that the work of the WCU is regularly publicised to increase public awareness of its achievements.”

 

12.8  Upon being put to the vote, the motion in the name of Steve O’Connell AM, namely:

 

“The Assembly notes the important role of the Metropolitan Police Wildlife Crime Unit (WCU) in tackling wildlife crime in London. This includes the illegal sale of endangered species and parts of animals such as tortoises, elephants and rhinos, illegal fishing and poaching, badger baiting, and acts of harm to local wildlife such as swans, deer and birds. Such incidents are criminal and can sometimes be linked to other forms of criminality, including serious organised crime.

 

The Assembly further notes that, for the past two years, the WCU has been partially funded by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), but that this funding will no longer be available from April 2014.

 

The Assembly believes that it is important that London continues to be able to tackle wildlife crime effectively. The Assembly therefore calls upon the Mayor to ensure that sufficient funding is available from April 2014 so that the work of the WCU can continue. The Assembly further calls upon the Mayor to ensure that the work of the WCU is regularly publicised to increase public awareness of its achievements.”

 

  was agreed unanimously.

 

 

12.9  Navin Shah AM moved and Steve O’Connell AM seconded the following motion:

 

  “This Assembly calls on the Mayor of London to lobby the Government to reverse its proposal to allow the conversion of shops on London’s high streets into flats without planning permission.

 

This Assembly warns that the proposed permitted development rights will seriously impact on both Inner and Outer London Boroughs by:

 

1.  Creating hope value for all retail premises in London whether viable or not, driving up rents for small businesses;

2.  damaging the integrity of London’s high streets and town centres, leaving shops isolated from one another by unsuitable residential properties; and

3.  generating sub-standard quality of residential units, as Planning Authorities will have no control either over the size and mix of dwellings, nor over provision of infrastructure or standards. 

 

This Assembly recognises that our town centres must adapt in order to thrive, and that injecting larger residential elements could be beneficial by utilising redundant space and increasing footfall. Many local authorities are already doing this. However, such a move must be done in a plan-led way to avoid destroying the integrity of high streets in London.

 

As well as secondary frontages of town centres, at most risk will be corner shops, local parades, and neighbourhood shopping centres, which are often at the core of local communities. Because the change of use cannot be applied selectively, this will not spare those shops which are thriving. We have seen this happen in London with the recent introduction of similar permitted development rights for change of use from office to residential: in the first three months, a national survey found that a quarter of the applications to convert offices were for those that were in use. 

 

This Assembly calls on the Mayor to lobby Government to reverse this proposal to avoid serious damage to London’s economic growth, social inclusion, and quality of housing, all to the detriment of localism.”

 

12.10  The following amendment was moved by Steve O’Connell AM and seconded by Andrew Boff AM:

 

“This Assembly calls on the Mayor of London to lobby the Government to reverse its proposal to allow the conversion of shops into flats without planning permission.

 

This Assembly warns that the proposed permitted development rights may seriously impact on both Inner and Outer London Boroughs by:

 

1.  Creating hope value for retail premises in London whether viable or not, driving up rents for small businesses;

2.  damaging the integrity of some retail areas in London, leaving shops isolated from one another by unsuitable residential properties; and

3.  generating sub-standard quality of residential units, as Planning Authorities will have no control either over the size and mix of dwellings, nor over provision of infrastructure or standards. 

 

This Assembly recognises that our town centres must adapt in order to thrive, and that injecting larger residential elements could be beneficial by utilising redundant space and increasing footfall. Many local authorities are already doing this. However, such a move must be done in a plan-led way to avoid destroying the integrity of retail areas in London.

 

As well as secondary frontages of town centres, at most risk will be corner shops, local parades, and some neighbourhood shopping centres, which are often at the core of local communities. Because the change of use cannot be applied selectively, this will not spare those shops which are thriving.

 

This Assembly calls on the Mayor to lobby Government to reverse this proposal to avoid serious damage to London’s economic growth, social inclusion, and quality of housing, all to the detriment of localism.”

 

12.11  In accordance with Standing Order 3.6A(2), Navin Shah AM indicated that he would accept the amendment.

 

12.12  Upon being put to the vote, the amended motion in the name of Navin Shah AM, namely:

 

“This Assembly calls on the Mayor of London to lobby the Government to reverse its proposal to allow the conversion of shops into flats without planning permission.

 

This Assembly warns that the proposed permitted development rights may seriously impact on both Inner and Outer London Boroughs by:

 

1.  Creating hope value for retail premises in London whether viable or not, driving up rents for small businesses;

2.  damaging the integrity of some retail areas in London, leaving shops isolated from one another by unsuitable residential properties; and

3.  generating sub-standard quality of residential units, as Planning Authorities will have no control either over the size and mix of dwellings, nor over provision of infrastructure or standards. 

 

This Assembly recognises that our town centres must adapt in order to thrive, and that injecting larger residential elements could be beneficial by utilising redundant space and increasing footfall. Many local authorities are already doing this. However, such a move must be done in a plan-led way to avoid destroying the integrity of retail areas in London.

 

As well as secondary frontages of town centres, at most risk will be corner shops, local parades, and some neighbourhood shopping centres, which are often at the core of local communities. Because the change of use cannot be applied selectively, this will not spare those shops which are thriving.

 

This Assembly calls on the Mayor to lobby Government to reverse this proposal to avoid serious damage to London’s economic growth, social inclusion, and quality of housing, all to the detriment of localism.”

 

  was agreed unanimously.

 

 

12.13  Fiona Twycross AM moved and Jenny Jones AM seconded the following motion:

 

“This Assembly welcomes the Government’s announcement that it will provide healthy Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) to infant schools from September 2014 and commends those London Councils – Southwark, Islington, and Newham – who have already taken steps towards achieving the goal of UFSM.

 

Pilot studies undertaken between 2009 and 2011 found that universality of free school meals reduces the stigma attached with receiving free school meals, increasing take-up, which helps to:

 

a)  Reduce hunger amongst children.

b)  Improve concentration in our schools and reduce disruptive behaviour, which has a positive impact on the education of all children.

c)  Improve educational performance; the pilots identified a consistently positive impact with children making four weeks additional progress at Key Stage 1 and eight weeks progress at Key Stage 2.

d)  Improve children’s social skills through eating lunch together.

 

These benefits did not accrue in pilot studies where free school meal entitlement was just extended, suggesting that universal provision is the only appropriate means of improving take-up and ending child hunger in our schools. Child hunger is a serious problem in London. The recent report by the London Food Board, ‘Child Hunger in London: Understanding food poverty in the capital’, found that 74,000 children in London sometimes or often go to bed hungry while 8% said that their children have had to skip meals as there was not enough food to eat.

 

This Assembly calls on the Mayor to write to the Secretary of State for Education requesting that he set out plans for extending eligibility of UFSM to all primary school age children in London.”

 

12.14  During the debate which followed, in accordance with Standing Order 4.5A, Steve O’Connell AM moved that “the question now be put to a vote”.

 

12.15  Upon being put to the vote the motion in the name of Fiona Twycross AM namely:

 

“This Assembly welcomes the Government’s announcement that it will provide healthy Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) to infant schools from September 2014 and commends those London Councils – Southwark, Islington, and Newham – who have already taken steps towards achieving the goal of UFSM.

 

Pilot studies undertaken between 2009 and 2011 found that universality of free school meals reduces the stigma attached with receiving free school meals, increasing take-up, which helps to:

 

a)  Reduce hunger amongst children.

b)  Improve concentration in our schools and reduce disruptive behaviour, which has a positive impact on the education of all children.

c)  Improve educational performance; the pilots identified a consistently positive impact with children making four weeks additional progress at Key Stage 1 and eight weeks progress at Key Stage 2.

d)  Improve children’s social skills through eating lunch together.

 

These benefits did not accrue in pilot studies where free school meal entitlement was just extended, suggesting that universal provision is the only appropriate means of improving take-up and ending child hunger in our schools. Child hunger is a serious problem in London. The recent report by the London Food Board, ‘Child Hunger in London: Understanding food poverty in the capital’, found that 74,000 children in London sometimes or often go to bed hungry while 8% said that their children have had to skip meals as there was not enough food to eat.

 

This Assembly calls on the Mayor to write to the Secretary of State for Education requesting that he set out plans for extending eligibility of UFSM to all primary school age children in London.”

 

  was agreed (14 votes cast in favour and 7 against).

 

 

12.16  Valerie Shawcross CBE AM moved and Andrew Dismore AM seconded the following motion:

 

“The Assembly notes that the Mayor promised in his 2012 manifesto that:

 

“Londoners deserve honesty and openness over fare setting. My approach will ensure that fares will be lower in the long term…By cutting waste at TfL my approach will keep fares low in the long term.”

 

The Assembly also recognises that the latest TfL Business Plan states:

 

“this Business Plan assumes that fares will increase at RPI plus one per cent each January for the period to 2014/15 over which TfL has a funding settlement with Government.”

 

The Assembly regrets the fact that the TfL Business Plan bears no relationship to the promises made in the Mayor’s manifesto and notes that, rather than delivering lower fares, the Mayor has increased fares by 33% during his time in office. This equates to a real-terms increase of 14% over the same period.

 

This Assembly also notes that the Mayor’s fare increases have disproportionately impacted on bus users, with single fares increased by 55% - from 90p to £1.40 – since he took office in 2008.

 

This Assembly challenges the Mayor to keep his manifesto promise and calls on him to increase fares only by the rate of inflation for the rest of his tenure as Mayor.”

 

12.17  The following amendment was moved by Jenny Jones AM and seconded by Darren Johnson AM:

 

“The Assembly notes that the Mayor promised in his 2012 manifesto that:

 

“Londoners deserve honesty and openness over fare setting. My approach will ensure that fares will be lower in the long term…By cutting waste at TfL my approach will keep fares low in the long term.”

 

The Assembly also recognises that the latest TfL Business Plan states:

 

“this Business Plan assumes that fares will increase at RPI plus one per cent each January for the period to 2014/15 over which TfL has a funding settlement with Government.”

 

The Assembly regrets the fact that the TfL Business Plan bears no relationship to the promises made in the Mayor’s manifesto and notes that, rather than delivering lower fares, the Mayor has increased fares by 33% during his time in office. This equates to a real-terms increase of 14% over the same period.

 

This Assembly also notes that the Mayor’s fare increases have disproportionately impacted on bus users, with single fares increased by 55% - from 90p to £1.40 – since he took office in 2008.

 

This Assembly challenges the Mayor to keep his manifesto promise and calls on him not to increase fares by more than the rate of inflation for the rest of his tenure as mayor.”

 

 

12.18  The following amendment was moved by Stephen Knight AM and seconded by Len Duvall AM:

 

“The Assembly notes that the Mayor promised in his 2012 manifesto that:

 

“Londoners deserve honesty and openness over fare setting. My approach will ensure that fares will be lower in the long term…By cutting waste at TfL my approach will keep fares low in the long term.”

 

The Assembly also recognises that the latest TfL Business Plan states:

 

“this Business Plan assumes that fares will increase at RPI plus one per cent each January for the period to 2014/15 over which TfL has a funding settlement with Government.”

 

The Assembly regrets the fact that the TfL Business Plan bears no relationship to the promises made in the Mayor’s manifesto and notes that, rather than delivering lower fares, the Mayor has increased fares by 33% during his time in office. This equates to a real-terms increase of 14% over the same period.

 

This Assembly also notes that the Mayor’s fare increases have disproportionately impacted on bus users, with single fares increased by 55% - from 90p to £1.40 – since he took office in 2008.

 

This Assembly challenges the Mayor to keep his manifesto promise and calls on him to increase fares only by the rate of inflation for the rest of his tenure as mayor.

 

Further, this Assembly recognises that even with future fares increases limited to inflation, there are special cases where targeted fare reductions are needed. This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to bring forward targeted fare reductions, namely for:

·  A one-hour bus ticket – allowing bus passengers to change buses within a one hour period

·  Early-bird fares – bringing discounted fares for people who travel early in the morning and helping to reduce congestion in the morning peak

·  Part-time Travelcards – recognising the increase in the number of part-time workers and bringing their transport costs into line with full-time workers.”

 

12.19  In accordance with Standing Order 3.6A(2), Valerie Shawcross CBE AM indicated that she would accept both amendments.

 

12.20  During the debate which followed, in accordance with Standing Order 4.5A, Jenny Jones AM moved that “the question now be put to a vote”.

 

12.21  Upon being put to the vote the amended motion in the name of Valerie Shawcross CBE AM, namely:

 

“The Assembly notes that the Mayor promised in his 2012 manifesto that:

 

“Londoners deserve honesty and openness over fare setting. My approach will ensure that fares will be lower in the long term…By cutting waste at TfL my approach will keep fares low in the long term.”

 

The Assembly also recognises that the latest TfL Business Plan states:

 

“this Business Plan assumes that fares will increase at RPI plus one per cent each January for the period to 2014/15 over which TfL has a funding settlement with Government.”

 

The Assembly regrets the fact that the TfL Business Plan bears no relationship to the promises made in the Mayor’s manifesto and notes that, rather than delivering lower fares, the Mayor has increased fares by 33% during his time in office. This equates to a real-terms increase of 14% over the same period.

 

This Assembly also notes that the Mayor’s fare increases have disproportionately impacted on bus users, with single fares increased by 55% - from 90p to £1.40 – since he took office in 2008.

 

This Assembly challenges the Mayor to keep his manifesto promise and calls on him not to increase fares by more than the rate of inflation for the rest of his tenure as mayor.

 

Further, this Assembly recognises that even with future fares increases limited to inflation, there are special cases where targeted fare reductions are needed. This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to bring forward targeted fare reductions, namely for:

·  A one-hour bus ticket – allowing bus passengers to change buses within a one hour period

·  Early-bird fares – bringing discounted fares for people who travel early in the morning and helping to reduce congestion in the morning peak

·  Part-time Travelcards – recognising the increase in the number of part-time workers and bringing their transport costs into line with full-time workers.”

 

  was agreed (14 votes cast in favour, 5 against).

 

12.22  Nicky Gavron AM moved and Tom Copley AM seconded the following motion:

 

“This Assembly condemns the Mayor’s decision to ignore the recommendations of the independent Inspector of the Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA) to the London Plan. We also condemn the Secretary of State’s decision to approve the plan despite the Mayor failing to accept the Inspector’s recommendations.

 

The Inspector, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, explicitly outlines in paragraph 5 of his report that “changes… are needed to make the revised LP sound and legally compliant”. These changes, required to make the REMA compliant with national policy as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework, have been entirely ignored by the Mayor and, consequently, the Secretary of State.

 

Unlike local authorities, the Mayor correctly outlines that he is not legally obliged to adopt recommendations by planning inspectors in relation to the London Plan. However, the London Plan must be compliant with national planning law and the Inspector is clear that this is not currently the case. As the Inspector highlights of just one part of the REMA:

 

“The broad thrust of government policy in the NPPF for affordable housing has two key strands: to maximise necessary provision and deliver a wide choice of homes, including meeting affordable needs. The overarching objective of the policy would not be met if provision were to be maximised but the Boroughs could not meet the NPPF requirement to meet objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in their own area.”

 

It is this Assembly’s view that the Secretary of State has made an error in approving the revised Plan, which is clearly not compliant with national planning law, and we wish him to reconsider his decision.”

 

12.23  Upon being put to the vote, the motion in the name of Nicky Gavron AM, namely:

 

“This Assembly condemns the Mayor’s decision to ignore the recommendations of the independent Inspector of the Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA) to the London Plan. We also condemn the Secretary of State’s decision to approve the plan despite the Mayor failing to accept the Inspector’s recommendations.

 

The Inspector, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, explicitly outlines in paragraph 5 of his report that “changes… are needed to make the revised LP sound and legally compliant”. These changes, required to make the REMA compliant with national policy as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework, have been entirely ignored by the Mayor and, consequently, the Secretary of State.

 

Unlike local authorities, the Mayor correctly outlines that he is not legally obliged to adopt recommendations by planning inspectors in relation to the London Plan. However, the London Plan must be compliant with national planning law and the Inspector is clear that this is not currently the case. As the Inspector highlights of just one part of the REMA:

 

“The broad thrust of government policy in the NPPF for affordable housing has two key strands: to maximise necessary provision and deliver a wide choice of homes, including meeting affordable needs. The overarching objective of the policy would not be met if provision were to be maximised but the Boroughs could not meet the NPPF requirement to meet objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in their own area.”

 

It is this Assembly’s view that the Secretary of State has made an error in approving the revised Plan, which is clearly not compliant with national planning law, and we wish him to reconsider his decision.”

 

  was agreed (13 votes cast in favour, 4 against).

 

12.24  In accordance with Standing Order 3.6B and with the consent of the meeting, the motion in the name of Tony Arbour AM, as set out at Item 12, paragraph 3.8, was withdrawn.