• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

I merely observed that that is what happens everywhere else apart from here. I take your point that you only have the power to direct refusal, but those of us who have experience of the planning system know that that is in its way every much as great a power as the power to approve. There is one other aspect of the green paper, which I think ought to have been addressed, and that is the question of planning obligations. You are suggesting that the GLA should have a role in planning obligations, and in effect you are suggesting there...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

It's not too late, but there are other areas of the democratic deficit in the green paper which we would have expected you to have addressed. For example, the green paper says "90% of planning decisions shall be dealt with under delegated powers". Now that of course is entirely at variance with the view that members of the public shall be entitled to go along and attend Planning Committees. Of course we know they can't attend your Planning Committee, but they should be entitled to attend Planning Committees and make representations to them to say what should happen. Every learned...

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

Therefore regional planning can also be democratic?

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

Do you not think though that it's very important for communities to be engaged in owning the direction that London's going in and therefore the way you appeal to the seven and a half million Londoners after the publication of the draft SDS, at the beginning of June or the end of May, is crucially important?

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

I have a supplementary. How do you see the community engagement in the London plan, which of course is being produced at breakneck speed and will obviously be reviewed, but how do you see community engagement in that for millions of Londoners and their communities?

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

Does that mean you would like to see Urban Parish Councils?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

That answer will come as an enormous disappointment to residents of Greater London. You will know that one of the principal objections to the current planning system is that the only person who can appeal against a decision they don't like is the applicant. Local communities might rise up in great numbers and oppose what has been said but they have no right of appeal. For you to say to then, as you have just done, that you think that this will improve local rights is really to buck the question. What you ought to have done, to show that...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

I agree that the planning system needs to take a strategic view and it shouldn't just be about NIMBYism, but does not your answer to that question, the incompatibility between right of appeal for one set but not for the other, does that not illustrate the whole problem with the green paper? Many fear that talking about speeding up the process is going to favour the developers over local communities time and time again.

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

On the third party rights of appeal you argued that having a directly elected Mayor who could face the electorate was a far more accountable way of doing it. The Government made similar arguments in the green paper, arguing that giving a third party right of appeal would undermine the democratic accountability of elected Councillors. But surely the logic of that argument is that there should be no right of appeal to anyone at all. Why should developers have the right of appeal, if third parties can't?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 27 March 2002

I was going to invite you to join in the condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Conservatives in posturing the "give the people a say" but then resisting giving the people a say in the regional tier because they oppose effective regional governments. But I won't say that because Nikki has helpfully elevated the tone. I will make the point and respond to your comment on Liberal Democrat policy. It is indeed Lib Dem policy to try and get local decisions made as locally as possible, but absolutely within an appropriate framework so that you don't get NIMBYism and the...