Search questions

• 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.

• 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: 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...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 10 December 2003

Given that those responsible for racist and sexist behaviour in the force have often been responsible for homophobic behaviour as well, can you outline how homophobia is tackled as part of the programme of initiatives that Toby outlined?

• Reference: 2003/0251
• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

What residual powers will be retained by LUL / TfL when the Underground stations are transferred by lease to the private infracos? In particular, will the private infracos be completely free (subject to planning controls) to develop station space above or around station sites commercially for maximum profit? .

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Just as Bob said the absence of graffiti on the network would give vital reassurance to people in terms of safety, do you not agree that the presence of staff on the stations provides the same sort of vital reassurance to people on safety issues? It is not only going to be psychological; it is also going to be practical. There will be practical benefits of tackling graffiti, safety, crime issues, or whatever and you do need a visible presence there. CCTV cameras in themselves will not be sufficient. You do need to maintain that staff presence.

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

And if the public are totally against it?

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

You are saying that the objective is to make more money, rather than to take into account any local impact on business in the area?

• Question by: Noel Lynch
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I am bothered by Camden, where it is opposed by practically everybody including the Civic Society, the Architects' Forum, and all the residents and businesses there. We are just worried that we will see these types of corporate, soulless developments all over London, with the destruction of the local community.