Search questions

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

If I could take the liberty of asking a question I asked of witnesses at the SDS. For probably a majority of Londoners the key views nowadays are the London skyline as you steam down the M11, or the site at Canary Wharf as you come down the A20 off the M25, so they are very distant views and they are very much car driven views, and I think many people would think that they are enhanced by high buildings and the more sort of long distance skyline. Do you have a view on that?

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

It was all going very well until you mentioned skyline. You say it is a mess but I wonder why -- it has always been a mess. The mess that we see in Canaletto may be a different sort of mess than the one we have got now, but the point I want to make really is, it has almost grown organically. What have you in mind to sort it out?

• Question by: Trevor Phillips
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

This is very interesting because what you seem to be suggesting - I am not going to offer judgment on it - is that we do have to make a choice and one choice is let it go and the other choice is a rather tougher, more dirigiste regulatory framework than currently exists. Now I am not going to make any analogy to soviet policies or anything like that but let's just be clear. You obviously have something in mind. How tough, how directed and by whom? Because that is obviously the way you would like to lead.

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

I would like to ask you about the conflict between the development of strategic sites and strategic views. In your view, if view is the appropriate word, should strategic views be sacrificed to economic regeneration and the development of the strategic sites?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Do I understand from what you are saying that there could be new strategic views and the existing strategic views could be improved? Presumably improved by new build of tall buildings which are often simply no more than corporate virility symbols?

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

My interest is that that has brought about a clarity which I certainly did not have and I know a number of other people did not have. But can I just ask you in two parts, can you do all that over a year, given that you have just said you started in May? Because I understand your contract is for a year. And you have talked about the SDS and we have only seen a document that is entitled "Towards the SDS" which, as I understand it, has got this ever growing life of its own. So if you...

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Will you be producing a report so that we will know that this is, if you like, what Rogers did in his year with the GLA?

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Lord Rogers, I thought I was just getting some sense about what I have been hearing and then I have got lost again so let me just seek to clarify. Are you saying that once you have made a decision about these two sites, are you saying that that work will then be fed into the work of the spatial development plan? In terms of your accountability I still do not get a feel in terms of where your work fits in to the strategic hold of the Authority. Is it too soon? How will you relate to the spatial...

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Lord Rogers, you are on a 12-month contract for a fee of, I believe, £130,000. Do you think that is value for money for Londoners?

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

I think the problem is the GLA does not think it is worth it but the Mayor thinks it is. It does seem extraordinary. Do you believe in civic duty, Lord Rogers?