• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Are you saying, therefore, that you would wish in the future to have the power to compulsorily purchase land on a substantial scale in London? Is that what you are saying?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Can you tell us what you are doing to achieve that?

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

On balance, I welcome the decision you made on Patterson Park and it does benefit a number of my constituents in the City and also people who live in Wapping who currently have a very poor choice of secondary schools. But I think we are in danger in this question of losing sight of the bigger picture. The question in my mind is about the bigger picture and this relates to your previous question about affordable housing. We really need to tackle regarding the needs for homes is the public ownership of greater areas of land in London. Not snipping...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

The fact is though, we are actually losing green space and if you go down to Southwark - I know you are terribly busy - but if you went down there and you looked at the spaces that are actually being suggested as replacement green spaces, it is a nonsense. One of the green spaces is already in use. There is no replacement, as such, and particularly with the equestrian school. It is not an appropriate place to build and I really urge you to fight the Government on this because, you said earlier about being concerned in your London...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Would you be prepared to write to them and suggest that?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

But the fact is you actually based your second decision on a letter from the Department of Education. It does seem that their information was wrong. The Canada Water site is actually larger. If you take the two sites A and B together they are actually larger than Patterson Park. I am concerned that the fact that the Canada Water site is actually valued at around £13 million and has now been put on the market for a possible retail site has played some part in Southwark Council's decision.

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Will full minutes of such meetings be made available for the Assembly, save in exceptional circumstances where commercial confidentiality applies? Can I suggest that would be a means of making sure the suggestion that things are not cosily fixed up in advance, perhaps for some gain to one of the parties, is best avoided. Will you consider that?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Does that include access to your meetings with developers?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Do you think that that power would make it even more important to have transparency and equity in the way in which you exercise your planning powers? And in light of that, will you revisit the suggestions by the Assembly that there should be proper scrutiny by elected members of this Assembly and proper input by them into your planning arrangements and the manner in which you take your decisions?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 22 May 2002

Thank you for that answer. The more we looked at this the more concerned we have become because it does look as if the Department of Education actually sent that letter to you in ignorance of the Kennedy report which clearly says that the Canada Water site is actually a better site. Is it possible for you to go back to the Department of Education and actually ask them on what basis they wrote that letter to you. I am concerned that the Corporation of London itself knew that the Canada Water site was perfectly acceptable. They stood up in...