Search questions

• Question by: Tom Copley
• Meeting date: 07 September 2017

Good morning. I also have a few questions on the Healthy Streets agenda. The Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy says: “It is essential that a new street network is developed using the Healthy Streets approach to make walking and cycling the first choice across the area.” It also says: “High quality and reliable bus links to and through the area from existing residential communities will also be required to ensure that everyone benefits from the proposals at Old Oak.” How do you balance the competing demands for road space from both these priorities?

• Question by: Onkar Sahota
• Meeting date: 07 September 2017

Dr Onkar Sahota AM: I expected my colleague to go first but, anyway, can you provide me an update into the work being done to refine the results of the Development Infrastructure Fund (DIF), which you referred to in your meeting in March of this year? Can you update us on what work has been done on that?

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 07 September 2017

Fiona Twycross AM: Thank you. I was pleased to hear about the work you have commissioned on intensification because of the point that my colleague Nicky Gavron [AM] made about employment in industrial land.

• Question by: Navin Shah
• Meeting date: 08 March 2017

What are your plans to unlock the full potential of Old Oak and Park Royal in regard to housing density whilst making it an attractive place to live in?

• Question by: Tom Copley
• Meeting date: 08 March 2017

Tom Copley AM: My next question perhaps is more for David [Bellamy] or Fiona. The report from the review recommends that public land is potentially wholly transferred to the GLA. To what extent does central Government recognise the complexities of the land and what discussions had the Mayor had around the proposal of land transfer?

• Reference: 2015/2753
• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 16 September 2015

Further to my question MQ 2015/0980, are you still in denial regarding the impact of money laundering on housing in London?

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Fiona Twycross AM: I am going to shift the question a little bit away from housing. Obviously, we all recognise the need for housing, but there is a danger that we create a false dichotomy between the use of land for housing and the use of land for other purposes. Does the Plan recognise and deal with the tension between the need to provide land for housing and the need for all other uses including employment and infrastructure?

• Question by: Onkar Sahota
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Dr Onkar Sahota AM: Sir Edward, should we expect to see more parks and other pieces of green open space being built upon?

• Question by: Joanne McCartney
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Joanne McCartney AM: I wanted to ask about waste facilities, in particular incineration. It appears to me that the FALP seems to be going backwards on the green handling of waste by making incineration more likely. Can I just ask if that is your view? Will the Mayor commit to reviewing the carbon intensity floor (CIF) so that it will rule out all mass-burn incineration in the future?

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

Nicky Gavron AM: Edward, I just wanted to follow up on the implications, really, of what you were saying about waste and incineration. One of the things we like about the London Plan is that it is bringing forward recycling targets. London has been performing very badly and is lagging behind other cities and of course other international cities. If you look over the mayoralty, the amount of waste going to incineration from London has doubled. Recently, you gave permission to Beddington, which we did not want you to do, for a 300,000-ton incinerator. If you replace Edmonton, you will...