• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Would you regard the London boundaries as actually currently accurately reflecting the conurbation in architecture and planning terms, and if not, what do you think the Mayor should be doing to take into account the impact on surrounding areas which really are part of the conurbation but outside the London boundary, to make sure that we do not have an artificial distinction in planning somewhere in the middle of Thames Ditton, so to speak?

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

If I turn to the SDS on the paragraphs on London's homes, it talks about "future residential development will be built to maximise the use of scarce land". On the other hand is that absolutely necessary? What do you think about adding in the number of voids or the number of vacancies local authority wise in inner London and outer London? I have the figure for the end of the financial year 2000 and there were something like 93,700 properties that were vacant, homes that were vacant, local authority, housing associations, private rental. Should that not have been included in...

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

What additional facilities, support, integration, access to power and influence or whatever, would you need to be sure of actually making that difference?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Do you find the assertion that there are only two strategic choices, and we have to go for the very bullish growth choice, one that you are comfortable with, with your background in architecture and your understanding of the history of urbanism in the UK?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Would you think it appropriate that in fact his Chief Advisor on Architecture and Urbanism ought to be consulted before they are firmed up?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

I hope you are going to be perhaps a little bit more involved in the London Plan in the future. One thing that concerns me and perhaps other members about the London Plan is this: you clearly have not been consulted by the Mayor on the basic underlying assumptions behind the Plan.

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

I am not sure that a fall of 6%, or even of 50%, is all that reassuring. We would all want to hear that it was a fall of 100%. So I return to my original question: can we investigate whether the safety training is adequate and up to date?

• Question by: Graham Tope
• Meeting date: 28 February 2001

Are you aware that, according to ASLEF, there is a considerable backlog in drivers receiving the training necessary to attain their safety-critical licences; and that those licences have to be regularly updated? Will you investigate this apparent conflict between the information that you have been given - presumably by London Underground - and the information that we have been given by ASLEF? Are you aware that, in recent incidents, six London Underground drivers were suspended for apparently passing signals at red? Again, that seems to conflict with the answer that you have been given, so we both need to investigate...

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

Did you go through a competitive tender for the appointment to the position?

• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 11 July 2001

If I were a developer I would be thinking, "Right, well the Mayor has appointed a man who quite likes the idea of building some high buildings in his private practice - the Mayor presumably would not have appointed you if you were completely against high buildings - if I were to appoint the Richard Rogers Partnership to be on my side for a planning application then I am quite likely to get the Mayor to agree". It is this sort of level of links that worry me and other members of the Assembly in terms of conflict of interest.