Search questions

• Reference: 2005/2411
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 December 2005

Can you confirm that your suggested pooling system of section 106 agreements could mean that you could use money allocated to one borough and spend in another?

• Reference: 2005/2473
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 December 2005

How many additional staff would the GLA require should the new powers you would like be granted?

• Reference: 2005/2410
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 December 2005

In your submission to the government on planning powers you suggested that: "The Mayor should have the power to call in applications for his decision (enabling him to grant planning permission as well as directing refusal), in those cases which meet the criteria for his involvement". However, in the consultation document it states under your proposals: "encourage a rethink of Government's role in the planning of London (but the Mayor does not propose that Ministers' current powers of call-in and direction should be removed)." Can you please clarify your position on this, do you wish to have call in powers?

• Reference: 2005/2412
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 December 2005

In your submission to the Government for additional powers, you state: "The Mayor seeks to be a statutory consultee on strategic planning applications outside London where there are implications for the capital". How far outside London do you wish to be a statutory consultee for?

• Reference: 2005/2413
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 December 2005

You claim that there is an analogy between the GLA and the Government on the promoter/decider problem. Does this mean that you would employ a planning inspectorate?

• Reference: 2005/2414
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 December 2005

You say that this would enable you to 'plan new schools within major development sites' How many such sites are there which require the planning of new secondary schools and where are they?

• Reference: 2005/2205
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

Thank you for your answer to Question No. 1910/2005. Will the Mayor state unequivocally that he will promote the protection of strategic views, including that of St Paul's from King Henry's Mound in Richmond Park, as enthusiastically as he promotes the development of tall buildings? In the light of the Mayor's answer to Question No. 1911/2005, why did the Mayor state in correspondence with me that, as a result of the Examination in Public of The London Plan, a decision had been taken to narrow the viewing corridor from King Henry's Mound in Richmond Park? Should Londoners take this as...

• Reference: 2005/2206
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

The draft London View Management SPG recommends the abolition of the long-standing St Paul's Height Code. Will the Mayor state whether he supports this Code, which has been so effective in protecting views of St Paul's since 1938, and what action he is to taking to retain something similar? The draft London View Management SPG recommends the abolition of all existing view protection policies of the Cities and Boroughs of London. Will the Mayor say what he is doing to ensure the protection of London's current strategic views for present and future generations of Londoners?

• Reference: 2005/2159
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

How many section 106 agreements have you and TfL requested from local planning applications for transport infrastructure improvements? Of these how many have TfL implemented?

• Reference: 2005/2264
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 November 2005

How many section 106 agreements have you and TfL requested from local planning applications for transport infrastructure improvements? Of these how many have TfL implemented?