Search questions

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 November 2001

I wonder if you could tell us how you're proposing to ensure that the boroughs, when they collect recyclable materials, actually have a market for them and they're not left with a large surplus which they have to dispose of themselves?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 November 2001

Except there's nothing more disillusioning for the residents of London who assiduously separate recyclable materials then to discover that those materials are in effect going straight to landfill. For example in the London Borough of Sutton, which turns out in fact to be the pariah of recycling authorities rather than allegedly the angel of recycling authorities, glass which is collected in the London Borough of Sutton goes directly to landfill. It does not pass go and it most definitely doesn't collect £200, and this in the London Borough of Sutton and I suspect over the whole of London is creating...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 November 2001

What about the general point that I've just made to you about those residents who are very keen to collect recyclable materials, but if they discover that these recyclable materials are not actually being recycled at all how would you suggest that borough councils explain that to their residents?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 November 2001

So are you suggesting that if there is to be no market for recyclable goods because of perhaps a glut or something, then boroughs should in fact say to their residents, 'Well it's an enormously costly exercise to sort and collect and so on. Just tip it in the ordinary refuse as you would have done before the days of recycling.'

• Reference: 2001/0053-1
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

What is the appropriate use for tall buildings? Does this predicate their siting? .

• Reference: 2001/0057-1
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

What have you done in your capacity as the Mayor's Chief Architecture Advisor to nurture and develop the talent of London's new generation of architects? .

• Reference: 2001/0063-1
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Do you agree with recommendation 6.3 of the London Planning Advisory Committee's Supplementary Advice on High Buildings and Strategic Views published in 1999 that the ten strategic views of central London should be protected? If no, what guidelines should be adopted as to what views are worth preserving, if any? .

• Reference: 2001/0064-1
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

At the moment there is no protected strategic view of the City for East Londoners. Do you believe that this section of the capitals' population should enjoy an amenity that is available to the residents of Hampstead, Richmond and Greenwich? If so, what should the view be? If no, why not? .

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

I am a little concerned about your desire for there to be a dynamic skyline in London. One of the great things about London is the residents' sense of place, and familiarity, and neighbourhood, and one of the things which actually ties Londoners into London are indeed the strategic views, and not necessarily just strategic. In my patch the strategic view is of the city spread before me from Richmond Park, for example. And I am not certain I want to see that dynamically changed. But I really want to ask you, what is the place of familiarity, as far...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

I would like to ask you about the conflict between the development of strategic sites and strategic views. In your view, if view is the appropriate word, should strategic views be sacrificed to economic regeneration and the development of the strategic sites?