My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for raising this issue. Of course, I instantly add the caveat that, because of the delicate position of the application, there is little that I can say about this specific case. I am sure that noble Lords will understand why.

Noble Lords will have noticed that I am addressing the issue rather than the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who generally speaks as a Government Minister on planning matters in your Lordships' House. Given her role in deciding and determining cases, it was thought inappropriate for her to take part in a debate regarding a live case.

As I have no part in the decision-making process, I offered myself up to respond to the debate this evening. I must make it clear that I have not discussed this case with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, or any other planning Minister, and nor can I in future.

The reasons for the First Secretary of State being minded to grant planning permission for the development at Vauxhall Tower are set out in his letter of 31 March 2005, to which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has referred. This states that the Secretary of State is minded to grant permission for the Vauxhall Tower proposal, but has asked for further information about the amount of affordable housing proposed before taking a final decision. Beyond saying that, I am afraid I cannot stray beyond the wording of the letter, or otherwise put a gloss on its content, as this might provide a ground of legal challenge to the validity of the decision when it is finally issued. I am sure that this is a point of propriety requirements related to planning matters that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, as a former Secretary of State, will be well aware of. However, I can say that no final decision on whether to grant planning permission has yet been taken.

I should point out that this case has been through extensive public scrutiny. This culminated in the public inquiry held between 15 June and 9 July last year, the report of which, and the evidence presented to which, formed the basis of the Secretary of State's letter. Since the issuing of that letter, further representations have been received. These have been circulated to all interested parties—there are over 50—for further comment. These representations, and responses to them, will also be taken into account, in so far as they are relevant, in the making of the final decision.

Without getting into the specifics of the case, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is concerned that, if this development goes ahead, it will lead to a rash of similar developments across London. I draw your attention to paragraph 17 of the Secretary of State's letter, where he endorses paragraph 11.32 of the inspector's report, in which the inspector states:

"Notwithstanding the points made in the previous paragraph, it is an important principle that each case is considered on its merits and, in this instance, I do not consider that there would be harm to the skyline from the distant viewpoints. Concern about the possibility of precedent would not be reason to reject the proposal".

The plan-led planning system should prevent inappropriate developments of all types in all locations. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in Greater London is the Mayor's spatial development strategy for Greater London—the London Plan—and the development plan documents that have been adopted or approved in relation to each area. Local planning authorities prepare local development documents, which, taken together with the London Plan, constitute the development plan for each area within Greater London.

An application for planning permission must be made to the appropriate local planning authority. The authority may grant planning permission, or refuse it. If the authority grants permission subject to conditions, or refuses to grant permission, or fails to make its decision within a prescribed period resulting in a deemed refusal, then the applicant for permission may appeal to the Secretary of State.

In considering any proposals for development, regard is to be had to the development plan, and decisions shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Each decision is made on its own merits and in the particular circumstances of the case.

Since April 2002, the First Secretary of State has made decisions regarding six tall building developments in London. He refused permission for four such buildings and permitted two of them: Heron Tower and London Bridge Tower, which is known as the Shard of Glass. To my knowledge, these have not led to a glut of similar applications.

The London Plan sets out a strategic planning policy framework for tall buildings and the protection of the built heritage in London.

The London Plan does not advocate the indiscriminate scattering of buildings. It promotes tall buildings in appropriate locations provided that they meet its criteria. These include that the development of tall buildings should create attractive landmarks enhancing London's character, help to develop a coherent location for economic clusters of related activities and/or act as a catalyst for regeneration, and also be acceptable in terms of design and impact on their surroundings. Further, the London Plan requires tall buildings to be of the highest quality design.

It is important to point out that there is also a broader national policy framework which is relevant to the consideration of proposals for tall buildings. Planning policy statement 1 (PPS1), Delivering Sustainable Development, already underlines the importance of securing high quality and inclusive design. The policy is clear. Design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted. This policy principle applies whether the development is a tall building or is low rise.

Similarly, government policy acts to protect existing buildings of historic significance. Planning policy guidance 15 (PPG15) Planning and the Historic Environment sets out the policy relating to this.

Government planning policy is to get the right development in the right place. Given their prominence, tall buildings should be of the highest quality of architecture and designed with full understanding of their likely impact on their immediate surroundings and the wider environment.

In addition to the Government's policy, English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (or CABE) have published Guidance on Tall Buildings which local planning authorities should take into account in the design and location of tall buildings. The guidance sets out a number of criteria against which individual proposals for tall buildings should be evaluated. These include the effect on the whole existing environment, the relationship to context and the effect on the local environment. The guidance, when read together with the Government's planning policies and accompanying practice guidance such as "By Design", provides a substantial body of policy and advice relevant to the consideration of proposals for tall buildings.

Much mention has been made of the Mayor of London. He is the strategic planning authority for London. It is for him to decide how he wishes to consider tall buildings. Each proposed development should be considered on its merits, with regard to the relevant policy framework. It is for local authorities to evaluate and respond to guidance locally. However, the planning system gives the recourse of appeal to the First Secretary of State, who may, in the individual circumstances of a case, form a different view to that of a local authority or any views expressed by the Mayor.

London has a great legacy of historic buildings and sites. Some of these were strongly opposed when they were first considered. I well remember the outcry that greeted the proposals for the building formally known as 30 St Mary Axe in the City—more colloquially referred to as "the erotic Gherkin". Now, many commentators, more qualified to express an opinion than I, regard it as a building of great innovation and beauty. In October of last year it won the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stirling Prize for the building making the greatest contribution to British architecture on a unanimous vote by the judges. It is widely considered to add greatly to the appearance of that part of the City.

Similarly controversial—possibly even more so, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would know more about that than I—was the approval of 1, Canada Square. Now few would argue that it should not have been built. It remains London's only entry in the 200 tallest buildings in the world 14 years after its construction.

London is not a high-rise city. In comparison with the major cities in the rest of the world, it has relatively few tall buildings. Again, and according to the most recent figures from Emporis, London has only six-tenths of the number of tall buildings of Istanbul in Turkey.

This is not to advocate a policy of approval for tall buildings, but merely to reflect that the application of planning policies in London, and the tenet that each case must be decided in accordance with the development plan—unless material considerations indicate otherwise—and on its own merits, have led to it having a different character to other major cities. It is a vibrant mix of high rise and low rise, ancient and ultra-modern. The granting of permission for the Shard of Glass, the site for which is—