Search questions

• 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: 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...

• 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...

• 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?