• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Will there be no revision of targets? Are you ruling that out now in the light of testing the assessment?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Following the finding of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment that more than half the sites identified in the Thames Gateway area and in the investment framework database are in high-risk flood areas, will the targets for the number of homes and businesses be reassessed in the light of this, and will the targets be rigorously tested against the flood risk assessment?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Finally, a question on flood defences. These are obviously expensive. The cost of replacing the Thames frontage is estimated around £8,000 a square metre. Are you confident that Section 106 Agreements can be used to fund both flood defences in the Thames Gateway area and the other social, environmental improvements that you would expect?

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

This is a specific question, and Darren (Johnson, AM) and I are dealing with an issue at the moment: if a planning application is being sought within a particular borough, say Waltham Forest, are locals to seek their first interaction with the borough planners rather than go to the LDA or go to the GLA? What is the route?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

It will be very important ' will it not ' if there is a suggestion that the land should be transferred from the LDA to the ODA permanently, that we get the best value from the point of view of London taxpayers, particularly with all the controversy over the costs for the London taxpayer. Can I just ask one other question? The Minister yesterday in the House of Commons said that the LDA had done `a reasonable job in difficult circumstance' in terms of land acquisition. Do you think that was a less than enthusiastic endorsement about what the LDA...

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Can we look then at the reasons why you have increased the land take by, I think you said, 29%. Why has the land take gone up by such a dramatic amount?

• Question by: Andrew Pelling
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Perhaps I will put the question this way: would it be unfair to say that the LDA has done a reasonable job in difficult circumstances?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Can I just take you back to what the Mayor said at the last Mayor's Question Time, where he said, on the record, that this was precisely the reason why the land increase was taking place? Can I just tell you what he said? `We have increased the size of the land we are acquiring by about 25%' ' you are now saying it is 29%, so clearly the briefing to the Mayor was not quite correct - and basically he has done it so that the land could be sold later on at a greater profit.

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

One of the clear risks that Londoners will be concerned about is that in order to fund this bridging loan, that the Mayor has put on record, some more of that parkland may get destroyed in order to fund these additional costs. Are you saying that will not happen?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

That clearly contradicts with what the Mayor has had to say. The reality is that the costs are going up beyond those expected and the Mayor has quite openly said to us, on the record, that it is basically a seven-year bridging loan that we are having here and we are acquiring additional property in order to fund the increased costs. Is it not a fact here that you are becoming a property speculator in order to fund the Games?