Search questions

• Question by: Fiona Twycross
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Fiona Twycross AM: I am going to shift the question a little bit away from housing. Obviously, we all recognise the need for housing, but there is a danger that we create a false dichotomy between the use of land for housing and the use of land for other purposes. Does the Plan recognise and deal with the tension between the need to provide land for housing and the need for all other uses including employment and infrastructure?

• Question by: Onkar Sahota
• Meeting date: 06 February 2015

Dr Onkar Sahota AM: Sir Edward, should we expect to see more parks and other pieces of green open space being built upon?

• 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: 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...

• 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: 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...