Victoria spoke out strongly against Government plans to give Ken Livingstone greater powers over planning and housing. She told Kensington and Chelsea councillors on Oct 11.

I am strongly opposed to this proposal on the grounds or both practicality and principle.

To take practicality first. Does anyone seriously expect that our current Mayor, Ken Livingstone, will be sparing in the use of these powers? Does his track record suggest that he will intervene only reluctantly and occasionally when great strategic issues are at stake?

I doubt it. Look at his record on the congestion charge. He carried out a consultation. His idea was roundly rejected. He went ahead.

He proposed the western extension of the charge when he knew it was already extremely unpopular. The consultation roundly rejected it. He went ahead.

He promised not to increase the charge from £5. After winning the 2004 mayoral contest, he raised it to £8. Now he wants to raise it to £25 for his perceived class enemies driving larger cars.

Is this the conduct of a man who can be trusted to intervene as a last resort and to take into account local sentiment. Hardly.

Ken's ambitions don't stop with planning. He also wants a strategic role in housing, health, skills training, the cultural life of the capital and - oh yes - water supply.

Look at how he is running City Hall. His slice of the council tax has tripled to £300 in six years and he has so many people on his payroll - well over 600 - that they are likely to need a bigger building.

I am amused by the suggestion by the Secretary of State that Mr Livingstone would take over only a small number of applications. Since when have Livingstone's takeovers been small. He doesn't do small. He does big and he does empires. He is engaged in a stealthy but determined and deliberate bit of empire building and planning would be major step forward for him.

The Secretary of State's naivete is also seen in her pious expectation that Mr Livingstone will be involved only in broad strategy and not specific sites on specific streets. Plannning always comes down to one thing - specific sites on specific streets. Otherwise, it is just castles in the air.

Criteria for a mayoral intervention are widely drawn and essentially leave it to the mayor's judgement where and when to take over a planning application. This is about as secure as defence as the Maginot Line. Mr Livingstone can and will drive a Panzer division of pet projects through it.

Nor do I think he will be deterred by the Secretary of State's most pious hope of all - that he will not sit as judge and jury : promoting a pet scheme while also being the ultimate planning authority. He will find a way round that one very easily, if only by getting his placemen to talk up a project that has taken his fancy.

Which brings me to principle.

This is all wrong in principle. Planning decisions should be taken as close to the people as we can manage. Local opinion must be central to any major decision. Livingstone has shown contempt for local opinion in the past and will do so again if he gets the chance.

Devolution of power, direct democracy as some call it, must mean that the local borough is the place to take planning decisions big and small. The public has had enough of remote, impersonal government. They want to feel they can make a difference. And their local borough is their best chance of doing so.

The only way we could challenge Livingstone's decisions would be through the courts.

I do not want to turn the planning system into a playground for lawyers. We should back K&C's rejection of this move and do all in our power to make the Government see the error of its ways.

In this website I have included the policies that I believe are most important for London.