• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

We know the cost of developing the various different venues could increase quite markedly as development costs increase. That may be an optimistic forecast that we can sell the land to cover the costs. The key issue that people are going to be concerned about is who is going to fund the budget gap, and how is that going to be found? What is your view on that?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

I am glad you have clambered on board one of our initiatives! My point is the lottery, in the end, is mentioned as the milch cow is it not?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

You are sidestepping the point. You understand very well that the objection of this Assembly, the objection of London councils, collectively and individually, is to say that they know best on these matters, not you, and they do not wish you to take over decisions which they ought to be making. What you are suggesting, in your wish list, means that local authorities, the London boroughs, are going to have infinitely fewer powers. I have no confidence and, on the face of it, the Assembly has no confidence that your powers of determining what ought to happen in a London...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

That is extremely ingenuous of you to say that just because so few were dealt with at inquiry or there were complaints or something of that sort. The truth of the matter is that the investment which is made by a developer in a scheme which is currently referable to you is so great that the risk of you directing refusal is so expensive you are able to use that suasion to say to them: `Unless you agree to all of these things, I will direct refusal'. What I am suggesting to you is that with the increased powers which...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

Really? How interesting. You have frequently commented, and your comment was echoed in the House of Commons yesterday where the matter was discussed, that it would be a mere handful of strategic applications in which you would wish to make a determination. That is really a rather naïve suggestion is it not, given that last year more than 200 applications were referred to you? What happened when those applications were referred to you, was that there was consultation with the Planning Decisions Unit (PDU). I would suggest, and perhaps you would like to comment on this, is that what happens...

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

At a recent seminar at the London School of Economics Neil Coleman said, on your behalf, that he did not expect you would intervene in more than ten planning applications per year. Do you still stand by that figure?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

So you do not expect it to be more than say about ten?

• Question by: Peter Hulme Cross
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

Three or four.

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

Thank you very much for that. If you get all of those powers your opportunity to meddle will be infinitely greater! You have indicated only in that answer that you believe that an additional 40 applications will be referred to you if the housing threshold is reduced from 500 to 200. How many additional applications do you think you are going to be allowed to consider if all of the other requests are met?

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 13 December 2006

By the Public Affairs Department at the Metropolitan Police Service.