• Reference: 2019/12331
• Question by: Steve O'Connell
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

In response to Question 2019/8975, you state that Policy D6 provides a requirement for an assessment of each development site’s context to identify opportunities and constraints that can determine the appropriate built form and the Plan is explicit that the density of individual development proposals should be reduced to respond to existing and planned levels of supporting infrastructure, including public transport capacity, where the capacity cannot be sufficiently expanded through the development or through a strategic approach to enhance area-wide infrastructure capacity. However, the Policy does not specify any methodology to determine the acceptability or otherwise of these parameters. How...

• Reference: 2019/12330
• Question by: Steve O'Connell
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

If the Density Matrix is removed from the Policy and Policy D6 is adopted – how will applicants be able to provide development proposals to meet the Policy if the Supplementary Planning Guidance to accompany the Plan that will provide additional detail on how to effectively optimise the capacity of sites by following the design-led approach, is not published at the same time as the new London Plan is adopted? And will this Supplementary Planning Guidance be included in the Evaluation in Public (EiP) procedures by the Planning Inspectorate?

• Reference: 2019/12329
• Question by: Steve O'Connell
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Your answer to Question 2019/8974 relating to the Policy D6 using a “design-led-approach” does not provide a detailed methodology to evaluate “Site Context” or a methodology to evaluate the “Capacity of Supporting Infrastructure” or a methodology to evaluate the “Planned Connectivity by Walking, Cycling and Public Transport Availability”. These contributing factors are vague and subjective parameter descriptions which would be extremely difficult to define whether a proposal was acceptable or unacceptable as there are no conclusive definitions of the parameters contributing to this “Design-led-approach” criterion or for the analysis of these factors which could indicate whether a proposal was acceptable...

• Reference: 2019/12328
• Question by: Lord Bailey of Paddington
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Would the Mayor commit to delivering a permanent solution to the on-going street racing problem on the A10 Great Cambridge Road in Enfield that is continuing to cause much distress to Londoners?

• Reference: 2019/12327
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Further to my questioning of TfL’s HSE Director on 15 May, has TfL identified the “Human” or “Humans” who committed the "human error" which caused IA 17 780 not to be sent to the authorities until the existence and contents of this report was publicised by a blogger?

• Reference: 2019/12326
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Further to the internal TfL correspondence you released to me in your response to Question 2018/2658, for the period 9 November 2016 to the present, please provide copies of all correspondence between TfL's Director of Health Safety Environment and TfL's Managing Director of Surface Transport on the subject of the Sandilands Tram Crash.

• Reference: 2019/12325
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Further to your response to Question 2019/6384, did the Sandilands Incident Review Board review, edit or approve any documents ahead of their submission by TfL to the RAIB, SNC Lavalin, ORR or British Transport Police investigations of the Croydon Tram Crash? If so, which documents did it approve and on which dates were these documents approved and/or submitted?

• Reference: 2019/12324
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

In a 29 March 2019 My London article (https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/claims-croydon-tram-dr…), a First Group spokesman states ""Following the tragic incident in 2016, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) concluded that the management of fatigue was not a factor..” Based on the conclusions of (a) the RAIB Report (b) the SNC Lavalin Investigation (c) and Fatigue Audit IA 17 780, do you agree with that statement?

• Reference: 2019/12323
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Paragraph 3.1 of TfL’s Briefing Note to the Board (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/24-july-2018-board-briefing-note%20-on-fatigu…) about its failure to send Fatigue Audit 17 780 to the Croydon Crash Investigators, Regulator and the Police states that while TfL sent IA 17 780 to the RAIB, ORR and British Transport Police on 12 February, TfL’s own Crash Investigator SNC-Lavalin did not receive a copy until 15 March 2018. What reason can you provide for the month delay?

• Reference: 2019/12322
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 20 June 2019

Please provide me with all communication between TfL and RAIB concerning Fatigue Audit IA 17 780 between 22 January and 12 February 2018.