DOCSLIB.ORG

Rebuttal Evidence Robert Fourt Bsc (Hons) Msc FRICS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rebuttal Evidence Robert Fourt Bsc (Hons) Msc FRICS PINS Reference APP/V5570/A/14/2227656 Rebuttal Evidence Robert Fourt BSc (Hons) MSc FRICS Land at: Former Territorial Army Centre 65-69 Parkhurst Road, London, N7 London Borough of Islington On behalf of: Parkhurst Road Limited In response to Proof of Evidence for Public Inquiry Commencing on 14 July 2015 prepared by Andrew Jones BSc MRICS July 2015 72 Welbeck Street London W1G 0AY Tel. +44 (0)20 7493 3338 © copyright reserved 2015 Gerald Eve LLP www.geraldeve.com Contents Page 1 Introduction 3 2 Determining Site Value 4 3 Approach to affordable housing 11 4 RICS Knowledge Provision 12 5 Other Issues 13 6 Statement of Truth and Declaration 16 Appendix 1 – RICS Valuation Information Paper 12 Appendix 2 – King Street Appeal Decision Appendix 3 – Factors determining Site Value Appendix 4 – Savills Planning Note on AMR Data Appendix 5 – Urban Land Prices under Uncertainty by Sheridan Titman (Paper from The American Economic Review - June 1985) Appendix 6 – RICS Knowledge Provision Definitions Appendix 7 – RICS Guidance Note – Valuation of individual new-build homes Appendix 8 – Officers Report to Development Control Committee in respect of 32 Lawn Road © copyright reserved 2015 Gerald Eve LLP Page 2 1 Introduction 1.1 I have been provided with the Proof of Evidence prepared by Andrew Jones BSc MRICS on behalf of London Borough of Islington, concerning affordable housing and financial viability matters by Parkhurst Road Limited. 1.2 I have been instructed to provide a response to Mr Jones’ Proof of Evidence. I refer in certain instances to my Proof of Evidence dated June 2015. 1.3 I set out my response under the following sections: 2. Determining Site Value; 3. Approach to affordable housing; 4. RICS Knowledge Provision; 5. Other Issues; and 6. Statement of Truth and Declaration. 1.4 Where I do not provide any specific comment in respect of any of the statements made by Mr Jones in his report it should not be taken that I agree or disagree with what has been said. © copyright reserved 2015 Gerald Eve LLP Page 3 2 Determining Site Value Residual Approach 2.1 Mr Jones does not appear to have arrived at an opinion of Site Value, but has instead used the residual appraisal approach (adopting my inputs and the Appeal Scheme) to suggest that the Site Value should be no more than £7.8 million. The approach Mr Jones adopts is first introduced at para 3.14 and referred to as a ‘Site Specific Residual Appraisal’. Mr Jones does not come to a conclusion on a suitable benchmark but simply uses the residual appraisals to generate a wide range of Site Value outputs, ranging from £3.8 million to £7.8 million (a range of 105%). 2.2 I note in following this approach that the inputs to Mr Jones’ appraisal are based on the inputs of my June 2014 FVA and the Appeal Scheme, Mr Jones does not independently test the Site Values he derives in order to assess whether they provide a competitive return to the willing seller. 2.3 The RICS Guidance Note ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ (RICS GN) outlines that residual appraisals are used to compare the output (either a residual value or a return) against a benchmark as opposed to informing an input (in this case Site Value). This is also consistent with Valuation Information Paper 12 produced by the RICS in respect of the valuation of development land which I attach as Appendix 1. 2.4 A central tenet of government policy and the RICS GN is that the determination of Site Value is separate from and different to the assessment of a specific scheme: “The guidance note separates the two key components of development: land delivery and viable development. This is in accordance with the NPPF” (RICS GN, p4). Mr Jones has intrinsically linked © copyright reserved 2015 Gerald Eve LLP Page 4 these two components. This is an error of approach. Appeal Decisions 2.5 At para 3.15 Mr Jones justifies the use of the residual method by reference to historic appeal decisions (paras 2.39 – 2.46). I note that the extracts Mr Jones quotes are from historic appeal decisions, which pre-date the NPPF, PPG and RICS GN. 2.6 A more recent (2014) appeal decision at King Street (APP/H5390/A/13/2209347) attached at Appendix 2, rejects using the residual appraisal method. In addition a landowner would not be incentivised to release their land for housing development given the market signals based on transactions elsewhere and upon the offers received for the appeal site. The Inspector in respect of the King Street appeal concludes that the residual approach for Site Value determination is limited and significantly out of kilter with other evidence provided, including valuations and offers for the site. Interpretation of the PPG 2.7 I note at para 2.6 Mr Jones’ interpretation of the PPG on viability and decision making, in relation to land value (paragraph 023) focuses on the need to reflect policy requirements and planning obligations without proper consideration given to the other two factors in the PPG i.e. providing a competitive return and being informed by comparable and market-based evidence. This is set out at paragraph 7.17 of my evidence. 2.8 In relation to the third factor, Mr Jones has not presented any independent market-based evidence to inform his opinion of Site Value at all. © copyright reserved 2015 Gerald Eve LLP Page 5 Market Evidence 2.9 At para 1.9 Mr Jones states that “there is no basis for a developer acting reasonably and in full knowledge of the relevant policy and guidance to offer in excess of £7,800,000 for this Site”. I disagree with this statement, given a variety of market evidence to the contrary including: • comparable land transactions; • an independent valuation of the Site; • an unconditional offer for the Site from a reputable developer active in the area; and • other bids that were received by the MoD when the Site was marketed for sale. 2.10 Mr Jones has not had regard to any “comparable, market based evidence as stated at para 2.6” in support of his assessment of Site Value, which is contrary to PPG and RICS GN. Indeed even applying Mr Jones’ singular residual approach different inputs could lead to a higher Site Value. 2.11 At para 3.51 Mr Jones states that “Gerald Eve sought in both its submissions to justify their assessment of Site Value solely by reference to limited analysis of other property transactions”. This is incorrect for the reasons given above and also contradicts Mr Jones’ at para 3.39 which states that I have also had regard to purchase price. Further to this my Proof of Evidence now also includes two additional elements; a third party valuation and an offer recently received for the site from a major housebuilder. Factors influencing the determination of Site Value 2.12 Mr Jones’ proof of evidence focuses on the impact of affordable housing levels on Site Value yet ignores the much broader range of considerations taken into account by the © copyright reserved 2015 Gerald Eve LLP Page 6 market in order to ensure a competitive return to a willing seller of land. I set out in Appendix 3 the factors, which a willing seller would take into account. This should not be viewed as an exhaustive list, but is indicative of the variety of factors that when considered as a whole will influence the level of Site Value. Hierarchy of Comparable Evidence 2.13 There are key similarities between the residential development land and the residential property markets, in particular the new-build market. The RICS have produced a Guidance Note on the Valuation of individual new-build homes (2009, 2nd edition) provided at Appendix 4; Section 9 of this document provides guidance on the weighting to be applied to market evidence. It is stated at paragraph 9.4.2 that “a hierarchy of evidence should be applied when weighting the evidence” and sets out a typical hierarchy representing “an acceptable ranking when faced with a wide range of evidence: • completed transactions of identical property for which full, accurate and verifiable information is available; • completed transactions of similar property for which full, accurate and verifiable information is available, including from the resale market; • completed transactions of similar property for which full data may not be available, but from which some reasonably reliable data may be obtained, including the resale market; • verifiable information from public sources and the media; • information from incomplete (but agreed) or unverifiable transactions of similar property • asking prices; • indices and other information derived from an automated valuation model (AVM).” © copyright reserved 2015 Gerald Eve LLP Page 7 2.14 It can be noted from the above that information derived from an automated valuation models, such as Argus Developer or Argus Valuation is considered to be at the bottom of the typical hierarchy of evidence, ranked below comparable transactions including those that are unverifiable. Notwithstanding this Mr Jones has used an automated valuation model as the sole method of determining Site Value and has inferred this is more appropriate than comparable transactional and other evidence. Gerald Eve Approach 2.15 At para 3.39 Mr Jones States that the December 2013 FVA Site Value of £13 million was “effectively reflecting the purchase price paid by the Appellant of £13.25m”. This is incorrect as the Site Value adopted reflects a range of evidence, including land transactions, the purchase price, under-bids received, the Market Value of the Site in its current use and the public sector approach to valuing underutilised sites and best consideration.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Living in the UK UK UK UK UK in the in the in the in the in the Living Living Living Living Living
    9 780956 826022 £ 20 ISL is a meeting point and great Living in the UK place for di erent Living in the UK nationalities. All the families feel welcome and happy to be part of this communi. Natalia, ISL Buddy Parent ISL London Natalia is a buddy parent volunteering as part of the Crossroads Transition Team to help new families feel welcomed into the school. International Schools need to oer more than an exceptional academic curriculum, they need to nurture the entire family in their new home. The award- winning Crossroads Transition Team ensures that no one is le behind in an international move. £ 20 London +44 (0) 20 8992 5823 Surrey +44 (0) 1483 750409 Qatar +974 4433 8600 An Essential Guide to the UK www.islschools.org ISBN 978-0-9568260-3-9 9 780956 826039 LIUK==3.indd 200 22.6.2016 11:47:25 THE AMERICAN SCHOOL IN ENGLAND THE AMERICAN SCHOOL IN ENGLAND LIUK==3.indd 202 22.6.2016 11:47:28 THE AMERICAN SCHOOL IN ENGLAND Living in the UK An Essential Guide to the UK Compiled by FOCUS © 15th edition June 2016 Every attempt was made to ensure the information contained in the publication is accurate and up to date. However, FOCUS wishes to point out that telephone numbers, websites and other details may change. FOCUS cannot accept financial responsibility for errors, omissions or changes in the information contained in this publication. We also do not intend these resources to be exhaustive; they are a starting point to your life in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • West London Pub Guide
    West London Pub Guide A comprehensive guide to over 1300 pubs in the London WC, W and Middlesex areas Copyright CAMRA 2005 0 1 CONTENTS FOREWORD Foreword ............................................................................................................... 3 What you seek when you travel… Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4 …don’t you want it at home, too? How to use this guide ........................................................................................... 5 By Michael Jackson What is real ale? ................................................................................................... 8 My job is to travel the world in search of good beer. I can strongly recommend What is CAMRA? .................................................................................................. 8 the smoked beer at Ceveceria Artesanal, a brewpub in El Bolsón, Patagonia, for example. Or the spicy-tasting Okhotsk Ale from one in Kitami, Hokkaido, Japan. West London’s pub heritage ............................................................................... 10 It is, as the song says, so nice to go travelling, but oh, so nice to come home. My first stop when I do return is my local, The Andover Arms, in Hammer- Pubs ain’t what they used to be .......................................................................... 11 smith, London. I may have flown into London sleepless from some distant bar, but I can’t wait to get my tasting gear round
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Hammersmith & Fulham
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions January 2000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Hammersmith & Fulham. Members of the Commission are: Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman) Professor Michael Clarke (Deputy Chairman) Peter Brokenshire Kru Desai Pamela Gordon Robin Gray Robert Hughes CBE Barbara Stephens (Chief Executive) ©Crown Copyright 2000 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ©Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS page LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v SUMMARY vii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3 3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7 4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9 5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 13 6 NEXT STEPS 43 APPENDIX A Draft Recommendations for Hammersmith & Fulham (August 1999) 45 A large map illustrating the proposed ward boundaries for Hammersmith & Fulham is inserted inside the back cover of the report. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England 25 January 2000 Dear Secretary of State On 9 February 1999 the Commission began a periodic electoral review of Hammersmith & Fulham under the Local Government Act 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • Points Asked How Many Times Today
    All Points for 2011 Postcode 7638 Point Location E1 6 Town of Ramsgate PH Wapping High Street 73 London Independent Hospital Beaumont Square 5 Panama House Beaumont Square 66 Royal London Hospital Whitechapel Road 5 London Wool & Fruit Brushfield Street Exchange 65 Mile End Hospital Bancroft Road 5 Royal Foundation of Saint Butcher Row 59 Wapping Station Wapping High Street Katharine 42 Guoman Tower Hotel Saint Katharine’s Way 5 King David Lane Cable Street/The Highway John Orwell Sports Centre Tench Street 27 5 English Martyrs Club Chamber Street News International Pennington Street 26 5 Travelodge Aldgate East Chamber Street 25 Wiltons Music Hall Graces Alley Hotel 25 Whitechapel Art Gallery Whitechapel High Street 5 Albert Gardens Commercial Road 24 Prospect of Whitby PH Wapping Wall 5 Shoreditch House Club Ebor Street 22 Hawksmoor Restaurant E1 Commercial Street 5 Water Poet Restaurant Folgate Street 22 Poppies Fish & Chips Hanbury Street 5 Barcelona Tapas Bar & Middlesex Street 19 Shadwell Station Cable Street Restaurant 17 Allen Gardens Pedley Street/Buxton Street 5 Marco Pierre White's Steak & Middlesex Street/East India House 17 Bedford House E1 Quaker Street Alehouse Wapping High Street Saint Katharine’s Way/Garnet Street 15 Drunken Monkey Bar Shoreditch High Street 5 Light Bar E1 Shoreditch High Street 13 Hollywood Lofts Quaker Street 5 Pegasus House E1 White Horse Lane 12 Stepney Green Station Mile End Road 5 Pensions Management Artillery Lane 12 Spital Square Norton Folgate 4 Institute 12 Kapok Tree Restaurant Osborn Street
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Needs Study
    London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Proposed Submission Local Plan Background paper: The Infrastructure Delivery Plan September 2016 For further information please contact: Development Plans Team Policy and Spatial Planning London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Town Hall Extension King Street London W6 9JU Telephone 020 8753 1081 Email [email protected] Website www.lbhf.gov.uk 1 Contents 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Document Background 5 1.2 Borough Context 13 2.0 Physical Infrastructure 17 2.1 Transport 17 2.2 Energy 25 2.3 Water and Drainage Infrastructure 27 2.4 Waste 32 3.0 Social and Community Infrastructure 37 3.1 Education 37 3.2 Healthcare 52 3.3 Children’s Services 59 3.4 Emergency Services 59 3.5 Leisure and Sport 61 3.6 Community Services 65 3.7 Social Care Services 69 3.8 Voluntary Sector 70 4.0 Green Infrastructure 73 4.1 Open Space 73 4.2 Thames Path 76 4.3 Nature Conservation Areas 77 4.4 The Grand Union Canal and Towpath 79 4.5 Outdoor Sport Provision 79 4.6 Play Spaces 81 4.7 Trees 81 Appendices 83 Appendix I – Infrastructure Schedule 84 2 3 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (LP) sets out the Council’s vision, spatial regeneration strategy and development management policies for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham over the next 20 years. 1.2 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has been prepared alongside the LP. To ensure the LP supports sustainable and mixed communities, a range of infrastructure will be needed to deliver this vision.
    [Show full text]
  • An Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016
    London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Proposed Submission Local Plan Background paper: The Infrastructure Delivery Plan September 2016 For further information please contact: Development Plans Team Policy and Spatial Planning London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Town Hall Extension King Street London W6 9JU Telephone 020 8753 1081 Email [email protected] Website www.lbhf.gov.uk 1 Contents 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Document Background 5 1.2 Borough Context 13 2.0 Physical Infrastructure 17 2.1 Transport 17 2.2 Energy 25 2.3 Water and Drainage Infrastructure 27 2.4 Waste 32 3.0 Social and Community Infrastructure 37 3.1 Education 37 3.2 Healthcare 52 3.3 Children’s Services 59 3.4 Emergency Services 59 3.5 Leisure and Sport 61 3.6 Community Services 65 3.7 Social Care Services 69 3.8 Voluntary Sector 70 4.0 Green Infrastructure 73 4.1 Open Space 73 4.2 Thames Path 76 4.3 Nature Conservation Areas 77 4.4 The Grand Union Canal and Towpath 79 4.5 Outdoor Sport Provision 79 4.6 Play Spaces 81 4.7 Trees 81 Appendices 83 Appendix I – Infrastructure Schedule 84 2 3 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (LP) sets out the Council’s vision, spatial regeneration strategy and development management policies for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham over the next 20 years. 1.2 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has been prepared alongside the LP. To ensure the LP supports sustainable and mixed communities, a range of infrastructure will be needed to deliver this vision.
    [Show full text]
  • Leader's Committee 7 January 2003
    12 7 JANUARY 2003 This appendix is circulated to members of Leader’s Committee only and available on request from the Leader’s Committee Co-ordinator – Cathy Cross (Ext. 2139) Appendix 2. Unitary Development Plan Alterations – Altered text Explanatory Note This document includes the text of the Unitary Development Plan Alterations. The Alterations comprise the changes to the 1994 adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) text that have resulted from the review of the Plan. The review had 3 main stages: • First Deposit Alterations December 1999 • Second or Revised Deposit Alterations June 2000 • Proposed Modifications July 2002 The final alterations to the 1994 UDP are shown in this document in the following ways: • “strike through” (eg strike through) shows text to be deleted • “underlined” (eg underlined) shows new text • “boxed” text eg 1994 UDP policy TN32 replaced with altered policy. indicates where large sections of text (eg entire paragraphs or policies) are being replaced with new text • “shaded background” (eg shaded background) shows non-material alterations subject to approval at Leader’s Committee on 7.1.2003 arising from consideration of representations to the Proposed Modifications 2002. The altered text is still subject to minor editing and renumbering of paragraphs to ensure that all alterations that have been approved by the council are correctly shown. In addition, the document will require the provision of an index, list of back round documents and page renumbering, as well as removal of “strike throughs”, “underlining” and “boxed” text before it is finalised for publication. The document is accompanied by a schedule of the changes to the Proposals Map that have been made as a result of the alteration of the 1994 adopted Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Searchable 1996.Pdf
    •• JOURNAL OF THE RUISLIP NORTHWOOD AND •. EASTCOTE LOCAL IITSTORY SOCIETY PRESIDENT: Leonard Krause SECRETARY: Mrs Eileen Watling 7 The Greenway CHAIRMAN: Eileen Bowlt Ickenham VB 10 8SL APRIL 1996 CONTENTS Page 1 Committee 1996/97, Editorial & Summer Outings 4 Ickenham Manor Moat, Ickenham, Middlesex Colin & Eileen Bowlt K. J. McBean 10 The Gawdy Papers Valery Cowley 14 'Mad Bess' and a Local Wood 15 Moving Images of the Past Valery Cowley The Nave West Window in St. Martin's Church Valery Cowley 16 19 Scout Camp in Ruislip in 1915 Kay Holmes 21 Many- Quartered Coats of Arms KayHolmes KayHolmes 23 Scout Chapel in Mad Bess Wood 24 The American Base, South Ruislip. 1949-1972 Eileen M. Bowlt 27 The Oerlikon Gun Factory, Ruislip Gardens Eileen M. Bowlt 33 Four Maintenance Unit & RAF Records Eileen M. Bowlt Mary Pache 35 Griffinhurst 39 PepysianBanquet recipes EDITORIAL As St Martin's Church Hall rebuilding and restoration work was not completed by September 1995, the Golf Club House in West Ruislip became our temporary venue. In January 1996 we were informed that the Church Authorities could not offer us the hall for our future Monday meetings, so we will continue to use the Golf Club House at West Ruislip for the forseeable future. Bob Bedford, our Outings Secretary, arranged three excellent full day coach outings and one half day trip to Richmond for the summer of 1995. The first was to Lunt Fort, Coventry, a partially recontructed Roman fort and to Charlecote Park, Stratford. In June we visited old Sarurn. where pouring rain limited the enjoyment of the large open site and Mompresson House, Salisbury.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Submission Core Strategy
    Local Development Framework London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Proposed Submission Core Strategy October 2010 Hammersmith and Fulham Council Proposed Submission Core Strategy LB Hammersmith and Fulham Contents 1 How to comment on this document 3 2 Introduction 5 3 Hammersmith and Fulham 9 4 Challenges 11 5 Spatial Vision 21 6 Strategic Objectives 27 7 Delivering the Council's Vision 29 A: Planning for regeneration and growth 30 B: Planning for the location of employment activities 35 C: The hierarchy of town and local centres 37 8 Regeneration Area Strategies 41 White City Opportunity Area 41 Hammersmith Town Centre and Riverside 55 North Fulham Regeneration Area 68 South Fulham Riverside 79 Old Oak Common and Hythe Road Area 83 9 Borough Wide Strategic Policies 89 Meeting Housing Needs and Aspirations 89 Local Economy and Employment 100 Community Facitilities (leisure, recreation, education, health, culture, civic services and other facilities) 102 Open Space 107 River Thames and Grand Union Canal 111 Built Environment 114 Tackling and Adapting to Climate Change 118 Transport 125 Hazardous Substances 128 10 Delivery and Implementation of the Core Strategy 129 11 Infrastructure Schedule 133 12 Appendices 137 Appendix 1 - Summary of the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal 137 Appendix 2 - Open Space Hierarchy 139 Appendix 3 - Nature Conservation Areas and Green Corridors 142 LB Hammersmith and Fulham Proposed Submission Core Strategy Contents Appendix 4 - Archaeological Priority Areas 144 Appendix 5 - Proposed Shopping Hierarchy 145 Appendix 6 - Infrastructure Schedule 147 Appendix 7 - Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies to be replaced by Core Strategy policies 157 13 Glossary 167 Proposed Submission Core Strategy LB Hammersmith and Fulham 3 How to comment on this document 1 1 How to comment on this document We are asking for your comments on the Core Strategy policies put forward within this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions to the Mayor Mayor's Question Time, 16 May 2019
    Questions to the Mayor Mayor's Question Time, 16 May 2019 PRIORITY ORDER PAPER Report No: 4 Subject: Questions to the Mayor Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Government response to climate crisis Question No: 2019/9155 Leonie Cooper With the school climate strikes and the Extinction Rebellion April actions bringing the climate emergency to the top of public consciousness, what do you hope the Government’s response will be? TFL advertisements Question No: 2019/8944 Andrew Boff How many of Transport for London’s own advertisements have had to be amended in order to comply with the junk food ban? Preparing London for rapid global warming Question No: 2019/8850 Caroline Russell How will you fill the gaps in your climate change adaptation policies and targets? Taxi Trade Question No: 2019/8896 David Kurten How will you ensure that taxis will continue to be able to serve wheelchair users in all parts of London? Brexit Question No: 2019/9156 Leonie Cooper What does the latest delay to Article 50 mean for London’s economy and businesses? Car scrappage scheme Question No: 2019/8785 Caroline Pidgeon What are your plans for a car scrappage scheme for low income Londoners? Protests in London Question No: 2019/9110 Tony Devenish What lessons have been learned from the recent protest activity in London and how will you ensure that future events, such as the Trump state visit, do not grind central London to a halt? Hammersmith Bridge Action Plan Question No: 2019/9116 Tony Devenish How soon can my constituents expect Hammersmith Bridge to be re-opened? Support for Survivors of Rape and Sexual Offences Question No: 2019/9267 Joanne McCartney New guidelines from the College of Policing into disclosure requirements from survivors of rape and sexual assault have raised concerns that they will reduce the number of women coming forward to report such crimes.
    [Show full text]