Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick has pledged to release “all relevant information” connected to a major property development involving a Tory party donor.
He told MPs he will outline the timeline of events and the rationale for his decision-making over the Westferry Printworks planning decision.
Mr Jenrick added further information will be released on Wednesday, noting discussions and correspondence “which the Government would not normally release” will be made public.
He accused Labour of making “wild accusations” against him and claimed the documents would show a decision was taken with an “open mind” on the merits of the case.
The Housing Secretary has faced accusations of “cash for favours” after it emerged ex-Daily Express owner Mr Desmond had personally given the Conservative Party £12,000 two weeks after the scheme for 1,500 homes was approved.
Mr Jenrick has since had to quash his own approval, conceding the decision was “unlawful”.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Jenrick said: “I will write to the chair of the select committee outlining the timeline of events and the rationale for my decision-making pertaining to the Westferry Printworks planning decision.
“Alongside this letter, and after a comprehensive review of what documents might be in scope of this motion, and of the letter that he sent me on behalf of his select committee, I will be releasing later today all relevant information relating to this planning matter using the Freedom of Information Act as a benchmark.
“I recognise that there are higher standards of transparency expected in the quasi-judicial planning process which is why I will also release discussions and correspondence which the Government would not normally release.
“These documents show that contrary to the wild accusations and the baseless innuendo propagated by the honourable gentleman (Steve Reed) opposite, and restated today in a series of totally inaccurate statements and comments, this was a decision taken with an open mind on the merits of the case after a thorough decision-making process.”
Opening the debate, shadow communities secretary Steve Reed probed further on a Tory Party fundraising dinner in November 2019 attended by both Mr Jenrick and Mr Desmond.
He noted: “I understand Mr Desmond’s lobbyists, a company called Thorncliffe, had been busy selling tickets to the event to people who wanted access to the Secretary of State.”
He added: “Ministers are not allowed to take planning decisions if they have been lobbied by the applicant and, under the ministerial code, ministers are required not to place themselves under an obligation by, for instance, helping to raise funds from a donor who stands to benefit from the decisions they make because it raises questions about cash for favours – which would be a serious abuse of power.”
Mr Reed asked why Mr Jenrick did not ask to be re-seated somewhere else as soon as he realised he was sitting next to Mr Desmond, nor immediately recuse himself from involvement in the decision.
He said: “It’s very hard to imagine the issue of Westferry did not crop up during the three hours or so that the Secretary of State must have sat next to the owner of Northern and Shell and three of his most senior executives.”
Mr Reed also said Mr Jenrick “allowed the applicant” for the project to reduce the proportion of affordable and social housing in the scheme from 35% to the 21% “preferred by Mr Desmond”, adding: “According to Tower Hamlets Council that decision saved Mr Desmond a further £106 million.”
The Labour frontbencher asked why Mr Jenrick “overruled professionals” on this matter, adding: “Without a credible answer, the suspicion arises once again that the Secretary of State was bending over backwards to do a favour for his billionaire dinner date.”
Labour also said the timing of the planning approval – just a day before a new community infrastructure levy came into force – would have saved Mr Desmond’s Northern and Shell company up to £50 million.
Mr Jenrick originally approved the plan in January 2020, overruling both Tower Hamlets Council and a planning inspector.
He subsequently reversed the ruling following legal action by the council, admitting that what he did was “unlawful by reason of apparent bias”.