Search questions

• Question by: Steve O'Connell
• Meeting date: 10 February 2016

Steve O’Connell AM: On this side we welcome the alterations that are designed to retain as much as possible our higher London standards and apply consistency across our city. A question I have for you, however, is for the first time there is a requirement for developers to consider installing lifts in developments below four storeys. The Planning Committee had some concerns around that initially and we sought some clarification around this policy. Clearly one of the risks would be by adding potential costs to the developer they may be incentivised to increase the size of the buildings and/or potentially...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 10 February 2016

Darren Johnson AM: TfL clearly identified that parking is a key determinant in the level of car usage in the Drivers of Travel Demand report. In a growing city does it really make sense to be adding to car usage?

• Question by: Steve O'Connell
• Meeting date: 10 February 2016

Steve O’Connell AM: Deputy Mayor, you will not be surprised to know that on this side we do welcome these relaxations. These are modest, however. It is interesting that colleagues are getting rather agitated over what we feel is too modest. I, indeed, had a report published last year that called for parking standards to be abolished in outer London and for outer London boroughs to be able to refuse planning permission based on insufficient parking. Clearly this does not go that far. If, indeed, my proposals were on the table I would understand colleagues’ agitation around that. That is...

• Question by: Andrew Boff
• Meeting date: 10 February 2016

Andrew Boff AM: Sir Edward, are you aware of a place called Barking Riverside?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

Does that include taking advice from the people on Lord James of Blackheath's team who had to bail out some of the consequences of the Dome? The police were involved in that.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

The trouble that I have is that the more one departs from basic commercial practice, when we fall into public sector practice, the greater the risk, history tells us, of budget overruns.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

Can I come, Sir Roy, back to a point that Mr Higgins made in relation to our earlier discussions? I am concerned about the extent to which bottom up budgeting is really being regarded as being acceptable at all. Would you not accept that one of the lessons I think that we have learned from projects like the Dome and other public sector projects is that, by and large, you should start from the revenue generation figure, and be very reluctant about bottom up budgeting, because that is where you get `creep'? If you have the revenue regeneration figure as...

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

How great is the budget for this security process, during the build phase of the building site?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

): I am grateful for that. When we looked at past history, things like Wembley and the Dome, one thing which tended to cause further increases in budgets was, regrettably, elements of fraud, sometimes sub-contractor fraud, and a lack of control over sub-contractor costs. What lessons have we learnt? What systems are being put in place to bear down upon that in a way which did not happen, perhaps, in some of those other projects?

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

So, at this moment, the total budgeting costs for security are approximately £1.4 billion then, if one conflates the two figures?