Skip to main content
Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 3

  • Dissolution of LFEPA (Supplementary) [1]

    • Question by: Fiona Twycross
    • Meeting date: 02 December 2015
    Fiona Twycross AM: I wanted to correct the impression that was given that the way it has been operating at the moment has been simply about opposition Members [on LFEPA] getting at the Mayor. The fact is that the Mayor has insisted on managing by Direction even when there has not been an impasse, including on issues over which there has been cross‑party agreement by LFEPA Members. I just wondered if you could focus a little bit on what impact the Mayor’s insistence on management by Direction has had. To be honest, we have had Directions on all sorts of...
  • Dissolution of LFEPA (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Richard Tracey
    • Meeting date: 02 December 2015
    Richard Tracey AM: Chairman, probably this is one for you as the politician of the two of you. The fact is, surely, that government, particularly local government, has been changing very considerably over recent years. That is accepted. The straight point to you: is it not correct that perhaps LFEPA in its current form is out of date and past its sell‑by date, really?
  • New Technology (Supplementary) [4]

    • Question by: Fiona Twycross
    • Meeting date: 02 December 2015
    Fiona Twycross AM: We obviously have to make sensible use of resources in the face of cuts. Some of the new technology that could come online is really interesting and will offer exciting possibilities, but do you agree with the Londoner who contacted me yesterday to say that £283,000 for a website rebuild is bordering on scandalous?
  • Proposal to Designate a Mayoral Development Area (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Stephen Knight
    • Meeting date: 17 December 2014
    Stephen Knight AM: Just one quick point and that is, is it legally possible to spend Section 106 or CIL money outside the boundary of a planning authority?
  • Proposal to Designate a Mayoral Development Area (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Murad Qureshi
    • Meeting date: 17 December 2014
    Murad Qureshi AM: Can I raise two or three issues. The first one, Eddie, I am grateful that you mentioned the canals at the outset. It is just unfortunate they do not show up on the maps. I have no doubts that residential developers will be eying those canal sides very eagerly, because I suspect they can enhance the values of the developments by up to 40%. That is the residential side. However, I am more concerned that they are used during the works construction on the site. I think this is going to be a huge development site, over...
  • Proposal to Designate a Mayoral Development Area (Supplementary) [9]

    • Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
    • Meeting date: 17 December 2014
    Jenette Arnold OBE (Deputy Chair): I have a couple of questions, one for Sir Eddie, and one for Victoria Hills. Sir Eddie, in your introduction you mentioned that the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) master plan was similar to the blueprint adopted by the LLDC. I know, as one of the three Assembly Members for the area covered by the LLDC, and was heavily involved in the consultation and now I keep a very strong watching brief on what is going on, that many aspects of the LLDC’s vision has changed. For instance, the LLDC plan started...
  • Proposal to Designate a Mayoral Development Area (Supplementary) [11]

    • Question by: Richard Tracey
    • Meeting date: 17 December 2014
    Richard Tracey AM: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Edward, can I first of all thank you for organising for the letter to Kit Malthouse [AM] about Wormwood Scrubs, which of course has been circulated to all of us. All of us on this side have received emails from many people who certainly were not constituents of ours but had some concerns, so I think it has helped very much to clarify, and I am grateful to Kit for writing to the Mayor about it. First of all though, I was going to say there is a lot of experience in this...
  • Question and Answer Session: Olympic Park Legacy Company

    • Reference: 2011/0075-1
    • Question by: Dee Doocey
    • Meeting date: 16 March 2011
    Dee Doocey (Chair): Can I formally welcome Baroness Ford and Andrew Altman to the meeting. Baroness Ford is the Chair of the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) and Andrew Altman is the Chief Executive. Thank you very much for coming. If I could explain how the session is going to work; I understand that Margaret and Andrew are going to give a five minute opening statement. I will then ask a Member from each Group to put a question in the following order: the Labour Group, followed by the Liberal Democrat Group, followed by the Conservative Group, followed by the...
  • Question and Answer Session: Olympic Park Legacy Company (Supplementary) [1]

    • Question by: Andrew Boff
    • Meeting date: 16 March 2011
    Could you tell me what role the OPLC will have in consulting the populated parts of the proposed MDC?
  • Question and Answer Session: Olympic Park Legacy Company (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Richard Barnbrook
    • Meeting date: 16 March 2011
    Thank you, Chair. I would like to take a step back as we look towards legacy. We are all aware in this Chamber that the host boroughs of east London are some of the poorest locations in the capital. 70,000 unemployed adults are in the seven east London boroughs that neighbour the Olympic site. I am looking at the foundations of a legacy. How is it possible to truly call this a legacy when, at this moment in time, of the 5,381 employed people on the site, only 20% are from the five hosting boroughs and 48% are non-British? This...