Search questions

• Question by: Kit Malthouse
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Kit Malthouse AM: I just wanted to raise the issue of Wormwood Scrubs with you. You helpfully wrote to me yesterday ‑ following quite a lot of emails from alarmed residents of that area who have an interest in the Scrubs ‑ outlining the Mayor’s commitment to protecting it. However, could you just explain to us, if there are no designs on the Scrubs as such, why does it need to be included in the boundary of the MDC?

• Question by: Navin Shah
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Navin Shah AM: Chair, the same issue: Wormwood Scrubs. The campaigners and Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust are aware of explanation given by the Mayor and the negotiations you had. We have a letter, the Assembly Members have a letter from yesterday from the Trust, who maintain that they still have grave concerns about the inclusion of the Scrubs in MDC area. Is the message now therefore from you that you are not prepared to budge to the campaigners?

• Question by: Onkar Sahota
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Dr Onkar Sahota AM: Sir Edward, one of the things, which Ealing wanted, was that they wanted North Acton to be excluded from the MDC. They had an understanding ‑ or they felt they had an understanding from you ‑ that it would be excluded. Can you show us why it is that it has not been excluded and why they may have come to this understanding?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Darren Johnson AM: I hear what you say about Wormwood Scrubs and the issue of permeability. I do not at all doubt the need to improve permeability. However, surely, this type of thing can be done through sensible negotiations between boroughs. You do not need to include it in the MDC to ensure pathways and gates to public open space, do you?

• Question by: Tom Copley
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Tom Copley AM: I wanted to return to the issue of affordable housing, because given the shortage of homes that we have this is something that is of particular interest to Londoners. Onkar Sahota has already called for a 50% target. You said that no borough at any point, you thought, had he ever managed to reach 50%, but surely it is better to aim high and fall short of that rather than aiming for 30% or 35% and ending up with 20% or 25%?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

John Biggs AM: Unfortunately, most of my time has been taken by a Member making unscripted interventions, because we did plan our time for today. I will try to be very brief. I have two areas. One is about what we call ‘cliff edges’ and it relates to the experience of the LLDC, where the purpose of the Olympics and its legacy is to benefit a far wider area. In answer to Stephen Knight [AM] who said that MDC money can be spent outside this area providing it meets its object, of course that begs the question of what the...

• Question by: Gareth Bacon MP
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Gareth Bacon AM: Just a quick word on representation. A number of Members have picked up the issue of transparency and representation on the board. You have made the, not unreasonable, point that it is a management board, not a local authority committee. Each borough will have one elected member, according to the Mayor’s consultation document. Could you reassure the Assembly that the boroughs concerned - although the Mayor will appoint them officially - will be free to nominate whoever they choose?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Jenny Jones AM: I have not been convinced by these arguments about keeping Wormwood Scrubs open space inside the MDC. The council that currently has it in their borough is against it. The Friends of the Open Space are against it. It looks like a mayoral land grab. It does not look like a coherent plan. Sir Edward Lister (Mayor's Chief of Staff): If I may, it is a coherent plan, but they do not agree with it. Jenny Jones AM: Do you not think you should be interested in localism: that decisions for local people for local land should...

• Reference: 2014/5937
• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Roger Evans AM (Chairman): Thank you. Now, the way we are going to do this, rather than tabling a lot of questions, we have just one question tabled in my name, and then we will take supplementaries from the rest of the Groups. The question that I have tabled is suitably wide to allow the debate to range across really the whole gamut of issues. The question that I am putting is: could you set out the likely benefits for London and the possible risks of the proposed MDC for Old Oak and Park Royal? Now, I accept you may...

• Question by: Andrew Boff
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Andrew Boff AM: Sir Edward, survey after survey shows that most of Londoners would prefer to live in street-level homes rather than high-rise developments. With the 350,000 children being brought up in overcrowded conditions it is clear that one of the aims for any MDC should be to alleviate some of those problems and provide more family homes. Can you confirm that the objectives of the proposed MDC will have a commitment to building street-level family homes?