Search questions

• Reference: 2015/2492
• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Your report calls for a 3rd runway at Heathrow to be mitigated by a number of measures including the banning of night flights. Can you confirm that, if those mitigating factors were not introduced then you would no longer support a 3rd runway?

• Question by: Tom Copley
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Tom Copley AM: Sir Howard, good morning. We are very supportive of the idea of an independent aviation noise authority. In December 2013, your interim report called on the Government to establish such a body. When has it said it will do so?

• Question by: Len Duvall OBE
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Len Duvall AM: Thank you for your earlier clarification around where air quality fits into the hierarchy of mitigation issues, but could you just clarify in terms of your report and your findings? Is it that pollution levels must come down around Heathrow before it is even built or could you envisage it being built and then taking pollution levels? Others would argue that some of your findings around air quality, comparisons and issues are slightly unrealistic. Give us the background of that.

• Question by: Kit Malthouse
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Kit Malthouse AM MP: Sir Howard, I wanted to ask a little further about night flights. When we last met when you appeared in front of the Assembly, you revealed to me, as somebody who lives under the flight path, this surprising idea that no flights land at Heathrow between 6.00am and 6.20am and that there was a moratorium on that. Since then, Heathrow rather helpfully produces on its website the actual landing times of flights and, of course, there are dozens and dozens of flights that land between 6.00am and 6.20am every single morning, including this morning. Would you...

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Mayor John Biggs AM: I would like to be in a position to apologise for some fellow Members of the Assembly. I will start by thanking you enormously for the work you have done and for the very thorough way in which you answered the question you were asked, while recognising that there is a significant minority of people who believe it was the wrong question and that there are quite a lot of other people who seek elected office - and maybe occasionally I am a bit like this - and who would like to pretend that the desire...

• Question by: Joanne McCartney
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Joanne McCartney AM: Can we move to issues raised in chapter 7, the economic impacts assessment, and in particular the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report into the wider economic benefits of Heathrow? I understand that you put the PwC report out to your expert panel to do a peer review and it came back. If I can quote from its report, it said, “We counsel caution in attaching significant weight either to the absolute or relative results of the ... PwC report”, and stated that the methodology used was “unique or at least very unusual”. Yet your final report quotes extensively from...

• Reference: 2015/0421
• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Could you set out the aims and objectives of the Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan document as laid before the Assembly, and how the Alterations address the issues raised by the Inspector and the Assembly and the changes to national policy?

• Question by: Stephen Knight
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Stephen Knight AM: We have already heard a little bit about the issues of housing supply and the deficiencies in the Plan and so I will not repeat some of what has been said. However, it is clear that the inspector was willing to sign off this plan really only on the basis that there would be a further review to address the issues before 2016. I noticed in the response that the Mayor has made to the inspector - or it may have been to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) - that a review is already...

• 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: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Jenny Jones AM: On this substantive issue, I am very concerned that you are actually releasing too much industrial land because the vacancy rate on industrial land has actually halved in the past 15 years and is now lower than retail vacancies. I am concerned that you are talking about surplus land when, actually, it is not surplus because small businesses still need to be near centres of population and they still need to be near town centres. I just wonder how much research you have done on this.