• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 13 October 2004

Barbara Cassani, when she was here, talked about private security. Is that still an option, or will it be from the Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and police officers that normally patrol London being taken across to the Olympics?

• Question by: Richard Barnes
• Meeting date: 13 October 2004

I know that the Metropolitan Police endeavoured to put £800,000 into its budget for next year, which would have been paid directly for Londoners and not necessarily through that mechanism. What I am seeking is a clear assurance to Londoners where that funding is going to come from. I do not want the Mayor to be grandstanding about his 35,000 police officers.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 13 October 2004

I would just point out, since the Mayor raised it, that of course the Congestion Charge is not making anything like the money that TfL originally predicted. My third question is about the lottery game that is being set up specifically to fund the Olympics. One way, surely, that we might have been able to help Londoners a little more with their bills would have been if you had fought harder, Mr Mayor - and perhaps you still can; I am hoping that this could still be rectified - to dissuade, shall I say, Gordon Brown from lifting 12 pence...

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 25 February 2004

In the London Plan you stated that housing developments should only progress in line with sustainable and improved transport links. I would also say that you must also include public services, schools and health services. What measures do you have in place to assess whether in fact residential development will take place with the provision of public services? If they do not, and public services are not in place, what will Londoners do?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 25 February 2004

I know you try to please me sometimes, but I assume that you have not just done it to please me or to appease the Government inspector. What changes in approach or policy will come as a result of this re-write, given that TfL's figures were projecting there would be a 13% increase in journey levels over the lifetime of the Plan?

• Question by: Darren Johnson
• Meeting date: 25 February 2004

When I questioned you a few months ago when the Government inspector's report first came out, you seemed very reluctant to take on board any objective about minimising the need to travel. I see that you have now gone some way to incorporating that objective within the Plan.

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 25 February 2004

What can we do when a planning application has already been granted but you still have not seen the transport assessment, and there does not seem to be any requirement from the boroughs to see it?

• Question by: Samantha Heath
• Meeting date: 25 February 2004

I would like to talk about the transport issue and the affordable housing issue. In order to deal with the current housing construction that is taking place, we have a couple of issues when densification does not actually come with improvements in transport. I have already raised the issue of how boroughs deal with that with travel leaving this building and going over to the ALG. It is the relationship that TfL actually has with travel that concerns me and the work they are doing in looking at planning applications and transport applications. What can we do when recalcitrant boroughs...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 25 February 2004

You have talked about the Thames Gateway, but in south London there are 42,000 new proposed homes but there are only intensification Opportunity Area sites for 3,000 homes. Does that not inevitably mean that you will have to change densities significantly in the suburbs to such an extent that you will breach your own objective in the Plan and actually change the nature of London suburbs with greater density and more tall buildings across the suburbs?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 25 February 2004

Is there not concern that 18 months ago that housing capacity was discredited as a basis for future projections because 15 boroughs who replied to a survey had demonstrated that 61% of the sites were already spoken for and were not available for new development? Is the consequence of that in following on from your own comments in previous meetings of this Assembly that the only way you will meet this densification is much greater building activity on small sites, ones that have to be dealt with by the boroughs, giving a green light to in-filling and back land development...