Search questions

• 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: Andrew Boff
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Andrew Boff AM: Sir Edward, in reaching a decision about whether or not plans work, we need data. We do not seem to have gathered data about how many family properties are being built above the second floor. Therefore, it is a little difficult then to monitor the performance of the London Plan’s housing targets with regard to what is, as far as I am concerned, a very important piece of information.

• 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...

• Reference: 2015/0112
• Question by: Tom Copley
• Meeting date: 21 January 2015

In your Housing Strategy you outline that you "would like to see new arrangements for prudential borrowing for new housing so that it is not counted as Government debt, which would distinguish it from more mainstream public borrowing, along the lines that apply in much of the rest of Europe". What progress have you made in lobbying the government to implement this change?

• 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...