Search questions

• 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?

• 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...

• 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...

• 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...

• Reference: 2009/0117-1
• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

Do you believe that your employment targets for local people will provide the legacy that was promised in Singapore?

• Reference: 2009/0115-1
• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

Is it acceptable that around 300 workers on the Olympic Park construction sites are receiving poverty pay?

• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

Could I take up one point with you on the whole relative costs of salaries and so on? Mr Higgins, you, I think, serve with seven other directors on the ODA, receiving pretty substantial salaries. Indeed, I believe you, this last year, did forego half of your bonus until 2012. Would it be reasonable for you and your fellow directors to consider foregoing your complete bonus until you have finished the job, and then receive whatever you are entitled to, through the success you have achieved?

• Question by: Richard Barnbrook
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

): I am happy to hear that we are actually on track with this and so the rumours I have been hearing that we are six to eight months behind have obviously been expelled by yourselves by saying we are actually on track, financially and work-wise. One thing I do have a concern with - and I have to follow other Members here - is the Living Wage or at least working wage of the London weighting. What I would like to have spelt out clearly is you are suggesting, by this time, October 2010, there will be 10,000 workers...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

Thank you very much. I am very glad to hear that you have made progress on that because it is incredibly important. Congratulations on being on time and on budget. That is pretty amazing and I am sure we are all happy about that. One of the next steps that you could do, in fact, with the Living Wage, is to have accreditation from London Citizens and I gather that organisations like the London Development Agency (LDA) already do have that. I wondered if you would take that next step and get accreditation and then, perhaps, you could also work...

• Question by: Andrew Boff
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

You set the target for 7% of the workforce being previously unemployed. The data that you collected relied on a voluntary question of the staff being employed and only 25% of your workforce actually replied to that question. Are you absolutely convinced that you have hit that target of 7% and that you are claiming 10%? Are you convinced that those are accurate representations of how many people were previously unemployed?