• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

There are many hundreds of thousands of people who are doing that. You say that this acts against the promotion of inclusiveness. I wonder if you are aware, Mr Mayor, that in fact the proportion of ethnic minorities that attend White Lodge which you have just said is a world-class, national institution is in fact greater than the proportion of ethnic minorities in the country. I wonder if you are aware that every organisation concerned with the Park ranging from English Heritage to the Royal Parks Agency to English Nature think that the original advice which was given to you...

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

I am a little bit concerned that we are looking at trying to make exceptions, even though people are providing a top quality service in the public interest and all the rest of it. It does discriminate hugely, do you not think, between the outer London boroughs who do have huge tracts of green open space and the inner London boroughs who have no other option but to find brownfield sites and to find creative solutions to accommodating things on brownfield sites? It should not be an option do you not think that they should just be able to go...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Can I get this right, Mr Mayor? You are blaming the Ballet School for this rather than blaming yourself? It is a feature of recent events and indeed other matters that you always blame the other person for getting it wrong. In this case, the only person who is out of step on this matter is you.

• Question by: Brian Coleman
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Immediately adjacent.

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

You are going on and on about it but I wonder if you have actually looked at the figures and actually looked at the statistics. There are large numbers of children from inner London who go there and the explanation you have given me is not going to be any help, I am afraid, in replying to a parent who has written to me on the matter. She describes herself in her letter as, `Until now, a firm supporter of dear old Ken.' She goes on to say, `The plans are sympathetic to their surroundings and an improvement aesthetically on...

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Chairman, if I can explain. I did not mean anticipating an application but in the situation we are in and indeed to pre-empt the situation that we reached.

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

The truth of the matter is that your planning advisors recommended to you and I have it before me, that the Mayor is content for the London Borough of Richmond to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take that does not therefore wish to direct refusal. You on the other hand have decided in your refusal letter to Richmond to offer a whole list of what appear to be your prejudices against this particular planning application. You say for example, and this is you saying this not your advisors, this is a...

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

Your reason in your letter as I understand it covered the MOL points but also, as Tony Arbour has quoted, a reference to the location acting against the promotion of inclusiveness. Is it not dangerous to stray outside what could be regarded as strictly planning matters, actually tending to become almost as nannying as saying that Congestion Charge payers cannot have an extra day to pay because they will forget about it? That is my first point about the breadth of your reasoning. The second is to ask you whether given what you have said about any prospective developer sharing...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 23 February 2005

I understood, thank you. Can I just say there is one extra issue I would like you to take up. There is an idea at the moment in the Road Safety Bill that there would be a graduated system of fines and for example that if you speed in a 30-39 zone, you only pay £40 instead of £60. That would actually be appalling in London because it already costs £46 to collect the fine. If we are only charging people £40 we are actually losing out and the Partnership goes without money.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 07 December 2005

Right, so despite your reprioritising discussions, nothing that is currently being done in London is going to be in any way, shape or form affected by the potential worst-case scenario?