Search questions

• Question by: Unmesh Desai
• Meeting date: 02 November 2017

Unmesh Desai AM: Thank you, Chair. David, I noted your answers to Assembly Member Bailey’s questions about the financial sustainability of the Stadium and so I will not repeat his questions. However, just to be very specific and much more direct then may I suggest Assembly Member Bailey was, you talked about the LLDC moving to a stable financial footing, you talked about long-term aspirations and you talked about making good progress, but you are not in a position today to tell us when the LLDC will have enough financial stability to be wound down. Yes or no?

• Question by: Navin Shah
• Meeting date: 02 November 2017

Navin Shah AM: Thank you, Chair. David, this morning in your opening statement you referred to the Olympic Park and particularly the venues that are there. They are becoming a major destination. That is good news and I welcome that. Leaving aside the Stadium, can you tell the Assembly what the medium and long-term financial viability is of the venues within the Park?

• Question by: Unmesh Desai
• Meeting date: 02 November 2017

Unmesh Desai AM: David, in the long term, can you tell us whether the Copper Box as well as the Aquatics Centre will continue to remain financially sustainable as well as affordable for the local residents and communities?

• Question by: Len Duvall OBE
• Meeting date: 02 November 2017

Len Duvall AM: Can we move on to some of the other contracts? We might include West Ham. In one of the LLDC documents - it might be in your annual report - you talk about “onerous contracts”. David Goldstone CBE (Chief Executive, London Legacy Development Corporation): Yes. Len Duvall AM: Are the onerous contracts that we are referring to the agreements with tenants such as West Ham and UK Athletics? Also, you have other contracts on catering, as well as the E20 management. You do not call it that. There is probably a technical term--

• Question by: Leonie Cooper
• Meeting date: 02 November 2017

Leonie Cooper AM: Thank you very much, Chair. I wanted to ask you about progress on dealing with the quite catastrophically large gender pay gap. You had an action plan with a series of 15 different actions, all of which, apart from one, were to be completed before the date of this meeting. I wondered if you could tell us about progress and whether you have completed all of those actions.

• Question by: Tom Copley
• Meeting date: 02 November 2017

Tom Copley AM: Thank you, Chair. I have a question about building successful and integrated neighbourhoods. I want to ask first of all, very directly: has the LLDC formally adopted the Mayor’s target of 50% for all new homes across the Park?

• Reference: 2015/2495
• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Is it possible to expand Heathrow Airport without having a negative effect on London's environment and the health of Londoners?

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Fiona Twycross AM: In answer to a question earlier, you suggested that Gatwick would not deliver more long-haul flights, but your report’s analysis shows that by 2050 Heathrow will deliver 133 long‑haul routes while Gatwick will deliver 131 and both airports will deliver a total of 405 destinations. Given your view that a key objective for expansion should be to facilitate new connections or more marginal long-haul routes to emerging markets, is it not the case that both airports actually fulfil this objective?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Thank you, Sir Howard. I am just looking at the table on NPV and social benefits on page 147 [of the Airports Commission’s final report]. Without being economists, we are trying to grapple with the issue of calculating the benefits and costs and the negative and positive aspects of the proposal. While you say Gatwick is a feasible proposal, you are saying the economic benefits would be considerably smaller than Heathrow. If you look at the bottom line of the calculations you have done - and I accept there are a lot of variables in here...

• Question by: Navin Shah
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Navin Shah AM: Following up Caroline’s question on surface transport, Sir Howard, could I explore further the surface access investment issue? Your Commission estimates the surface access investment required for servicing an expanded Heathrow will be £5.7 billion. If you look at that against the TfL estimate, it reckons the sum required will be £20 billion, which is four times higher than your estimate. I believe this is due to the fact that the Airports Commission has included a number of unapproved and unfunded schemes in its assumptions of what the transport situation will be around 2030. Is that not...