Search questions

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Nicky Gavron AM: Sir Edward, thank you very much for that introduction. The big headline out of this Plan is that the Mayor’s target is not high enough to meet the housing that London needs. It does not even take the target that is given in his own evidence. We have a housing crisis. Why are you content to move forward with a Plan that does not meet London’s housing need?

• Question by: Tom Copley
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Tom Copley AM: I want to move on to talk about affordable housing. Would a London-wide percentage target for affordable housing be more effective at delivering the homes that Londoners need the most?

• Question by: Navin Shah
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Navin Shah AM: Good morning, Sir Edward. In your introduction, you made a reference to the long-term future. Can we look at that in the context of safeguarding London’s skyline? Can you tell me, please, what policies in the altered London Plan could be used to ensure that in the short and long term we do not end up with out-of-character buildings like 1 Merchant Square popping up across London?

• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Richard Tracey AM: Thank you, Chairman. Could I just pursue you a little further on the line of questioning you were receiving from Steve O’Connell about parking in outer London? Are you specifically delineating what is ‘outer London’ and what is ‘inner London’? What bothers me is that sometimes it seems that TfL, when commenting on planning applications, tries to impose the rather stricter inner London format on outer London boroughs. As you said, we do definitely need more scope for residential parking in outer London.

• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Murad Qureshi AM: Sir Edward, can I bring up the particular issue of subterranean basement developments? Last night I heard from residents of Bayswater that they have had 15 of these developments in the last 18 months. It has caused sinkholes, flooding and structural damage to properties. It is a problem not only in the City of Westminster but in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in Hammersmith and Fulham and I understand in other boroughs in north London as well. We also unanimously passed a motion in March proposing that some limits should be made on these excessive...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

The problem is when the Chair of the Federation is saying what he says, which is so seriously strong when he says that it is being reported it is far below what really happens, underplayed for political reasons, you can play with statistics in that sense and the public does not feel that we have gotten on top of it. I think that independent statistics surely are the answer.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

I take the point, wholly, that the train operating companies should be paying for their policing. Historically they do not. I do not think the public is going to be much impressed by this turf war.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

It was suggested to me that this had been requested by TfL in order to collect figures on the congestion charge and people's journey times and choices.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Thank you for that answer. I freely admit this is a semi-planted question. The question is not planted but I received a briefing from the police several months ago precisely as part of the strategy which I think the Authority supports of seeking to reclaim funding for policing at London City Airport, and I quite strongly support that, it is a very profitable enterprise. As I understand it the figures are that currently policing at Heathrow costs roughly £48 million a year, of which we recover £26 million, and we want to increase that to £35 million. From the public...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

London City Airport; roughly we spend £7 million on policing - I think this is public information - and we are hoping to recover £5 million of that £7 million from them. That is not unreasonable.