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: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

I appreciate one size does not fit all and I totally agree with that. Would it be fair to say that the way to go forward would be where there is an excellent product, that you would like to use best practice principles in order to extend those practices across the capital?

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

You will obviously keep us updated as you make your progress round?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Indeed. That is showing up in the home safety checks which I think have risen from around 9,000 a couple of years ago to approximately 20,000 in the year that has just ended and the target for the current year is approximately 30,000. Even if you add all that up, that is 40,000-50,000 home safety checks. One or two per cent of Londoners have had a home safety check. Should we not be looking for a real huge step forward in this area?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

On the Thames Gateway development issues, you said you have not specifically commented on the flood risk issue. Could I ask that LFEPA does look at the recommendations from the Assembly's Environment Committee that the plans be rigorously tested?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Even if that is not going to be a statutory function, obviously there is a direct pressure that flood risk places on LFEPA's activities. Should you not be pressing for stronger planning policies to limit new development in high-risk flood areas, and actually really take a key part in this debate about Thames Gateway?