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: 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: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

So you are telling the Assembly that, simply based on the information that you held in your records, on the assumption that all of your records were complete, you were able to come to a conclusion with regard to what Brenda Stern said, that as far as you were concerned there is no case to answer? Would not the obvious thing for you to have done have been to go to the source of the allegations? Is that not an elementary thing to do? Why did you limit your investigation just to the material which you say that you hold?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

So are those the records that the LDA has of email traffic and other aspects?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

So you are telling the Assembly that, simply based on the information that you held in your records, on the assumption that all of your records were complete, you were able to come to a conclusion with regard to what Brenda Stern said, that as far as you were concerned there is no case to answer? Would not the obvious thing for you to have done have been to go to the source of the allegations? Is that not an elementary thing to do? Why did you limit your investigation just to the material which you say that you hold?