Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 2

Meeting type

Organisation

Question by 2

Status

Year

  • Infrastructure in the Thames Gateway (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Mike Tuffrey
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    A small point, returning to this question of the utilities infrastructure and whether you are in this rich mix of cooks and broths and magic wands talking to the regulators, Ofcom, Ofgem and all the other `ofs', because in the old days the utilities, the phone, gas and electricity companies would have been able to put the infrastructure in ahead of demand. Now they are working on a private model they can only put the investment in if there is a sure payback, unless the regulators tell them they have to do that. So are the regulators part of this?

  • Infrastructure in the Thames Gateway (Supplementary) [12]

    • Question by: Mike Tuffrey
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    I saw that the LDA was putting a grant into some electricity substation, I cannot remember the details, and I thought `why is the LDA paying for electricity infrastructure?'

  • Infrastructure in the Thames Gateway (Supplementary) [13]

    • Question by: Mike Tuffrey
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    As long as the money is coming back, because they are going to make money using it.

  • Regeneration/Environment

    • Reference: 2003/0303
    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    How much LDA money that had been earmarked for other projects has been set aside for the Olympic project? What will happen to these projects as a result? .

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    So, if I get the terminology right, there has been indicative funding for various projects, which are now not getting indicative funding because it is going to the Olympics. That is how I understand it.

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [3]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    My apologies. Can you explain?

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [4]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    Do you have a figure for the size of the adjustment?

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    So 25% of your future funding, which would have gone to other communities, has been adjusted to the Olympics?

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    Yes, and we accept that. In a sense I am being taken around the round-about here, am I not?

  • Regeneration/Environment (Supplementary) [7]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 15 October 2003
    We accept totally the case for the Lower Lea Valley and all the rest of it. All we are asking quite simply is what are these `adjustments `and `indicative funding" and all the other terminology and has anything actually been delayed or lost out because this has greater priority. That is all; it is quite simple; there is no need to hide it.