• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

Do you think that the journey depicted in the advert is representative of Londoners' day-to-day experience of public transport?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

Do you think that Gordon Ramsay is a suitable person to use to promote transport in London, and why that particular individual?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

It is an advert, it is not reality.

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

I think everybody understands that. How is it going to impact on Londoners now who want housing? You already told us, right at the very beginning of this answer to my question that you want boroughs to enforce this, as well. Does that mean when they submit their local development frameworks to you, you will reject them if they do not incorporate this requirement?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

The 20% increase in the renewables target is very welcome, but have you thought that rather than having to go through the hassle of having to keep increasing this every few years as the technology improves and the need for change becomes ever more urgent, why not just set incremental targets within the London Plan for the renewables target so that it will increase by X% every five years or so? This would provide a much clearer framework, and also help boroughs with their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs); it would be far easier for them to incorporate and keep updating...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

So your powers over boroughs and the way in which you are going to constrict borough freedoms, is going to increase very substantially?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

Even if you are able to make it mandatory, it would take a very long time for the economies of scale that you suggest to actually operate. What is going to happen in the short term, because presumably you want this to come in as soon as possible? Indeed, we are all agog to see what housing powers you are about to get, the new planning powers you are about to get. In the short term, there is going to be this increase, which your advisor thinks could be 10%. Are you going to assist developers to provide this energy...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

So, you would make a trade-off. In the short term, energy efficiency is going to be more important than affordable housing?

• Question by: Nicky Gavron
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

I just wanted to ask you, have you not found in your own meetings with boroughs and with developers in boroughs that the developers themselves would like to have a level playing field? One of the key problems is that if there is not a proper regulatory system in place, they do not have that level playing field. Have you not also brought out sustainable design construction guidelines and put a policy in the alterations to the London Plan which says that the first thing the developers must do is build in a sustainable way, which reduces energy and costs...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 21 June 2006

That has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with affordable housing. What, in effect, you are doing is that you are going to constrict and restrict the boroughs' freedoms which they currently have. That cannot possibly be acceptable. If Richmond, for example, thinks that they want to be even stronger, and I suspect that since there are loonies there now, they have taken over the asylum they are probably going to want to increase the figure that you are giving for carbon reduction. However, that is their right, not your right. It should be the right of every London borough...