Skip to main content
Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 2

  • Proposal to Designate a Mayoral Development Area (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Stephen Knight
    • Meeting date: 17 December 2014
    Stephen Knight AM: Just one quick point and that is, is it legally possible to spend Section 106 or CIL money outside the boundary of a planning authority?
  • Proposal to Designate a Mayoral Development Area (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Murad Qureshi
    • Meeting date: 17 December 2014
    Murad Qureshi AM: Can I raise two or three issues. The first one, Eddie, I am grateful that you mentioned the canals at the outset. It is just unfortunate they do not show up on the maps. I have no doubts that residential developers will be eying those canal sides very eagerly, because I suspect they can enhance the values of the developments by up to 40%. That is the residential side. However, I am more concerned that they are used during the works construction on the site. I think this is going to be a huge development site, over...
  • Proposal to Designate a Mayoral Development Area (Supplementary) [9]

    • Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
    • Meeting date: 17 December 2014
    Jenette Arnold OBE (Deputy Chair): I have a couple of questions, one for Sir Eddie, and one for Victoria Hills. Sir Eddie, in your introduction you mentioned that the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) master plan was similar to the blueprint adopted by the LLDC. I know, as one of the three Assembly Members for the area covered by the LLDC, and was heavily involved in the consultation and now I keep a very strong watching brief on what is going on, that many aspects of the LLDC’s vision has changed. For instance, the LLDC plan started...
  • Proposal to Designate a Mayoral Development Area (Supplementary) [11]

    • Question by: Richard Tracey
    • Meeting date: 17 December 2014
    Richard Tracey AM: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Edward, can I first of all thank you for organising for the letter to Kit Malthouse [AM] about Wormwood Scrubs, which of course has been circulated to all of us. All of us on this side have received emails from many people who certainly were not constituents of ours but had some concerns, so I think it has helped very much to clarify, and I am grateful to Kit for writing to the Mayor about it. First of all though, I was going to say there is a lot of experience in this...
  • Recent changes at the LDA (Supplementary) [4]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    Perhaps to address another part of your presentation, which links to this, you talked about the need for the LDA to have credibility with business, but are there not occasions when business has to have credibility with Londoners and the LDA needs to say that the employment, training and mentoring practices of the private sector in London are short-sighted, are disadvantaging London and, in the end, will disadvantage those businesses? I am being quite strident in pursuing that. Perhaps your Chair should answer that.
  • Recent changes at the LDA (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    Is that a priority for the LDA?
  • Recent changes at the LDA (Supplementary) [11]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    Which other priority is a lesser priority as a consequence of that? What I am trying to get my head around is the extent to which" Obviously in life you have to pursue a lot of relatively easy targets and priorities, but you need to take some challenging ones on now. I think, and I think a lot of my colleagues and constituents believe, that that is a really vital one for London and we have not done enough on it yet.
  • Skills (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Darren Johnson
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
  • LDA Agenda (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Eric Ollerenshaw
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    My question is on joined-up government and all these relationships with the ODPM, the DCMS, the DTI, GOL and all the rest of it. Did anybody inform you of the Government's new scheme to move some 80,000 jobs out of London? In a sense, there is a contradiction between the long-term plan that London is going to increase, and the Government actually trying to cut down the increase by moving jobs out of London. Was there any consultation with the LDA on this?
  • LDA Agenda (Supplementary) [6]

    • Question by: Mike Tuffrey
    • Meeting date: 17 March 2004
    The thesis behind this question is that the Assembly has a statutory responsibility to hold the LDA to account, but you are not a creature of regional government; there are these multiple accountabilities. If we are to do our job in holding you to account effectively, we need to see how these conflicts are working, and we talked offline about the difficulty of, for example, making available publicly a Government Office for London quarterly assessment of you. I think we need to explore further how to see that relationship working better with government. Moving on to the second question relating...