Mayoral Election

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Mayoral Election The 2004 London Elections Includes results from the 2005 Parliamentary General Election in London and from the 2006 London Borough Council General Elections Previous publications on local government elections General Election of Greater London Councillors - 9 April 1964 London Borough Council Elections - 7 May 1964 General Election of Greater London Councillors - 13 April 1967 London Borough Council Elections - 9 May 1968 Greater London Council Elections - 9 April 1970 London Borough Council Elections - 13 May 1971 Greater London Council Elections - 12 April 1973 London Borough Council Elections - 2 May 1974 Greater London Council Elections - 5 May 1977 London Borough Council Elections - 4 May 1978 Greater London Council Elections - 7 May 1981 London Borough Council Elections - 6 May 1982 London Borough Council Elections - 8 May 1986 Inner London Education Authority Direct Elections - 8 May 1986 London Borough Council Elections - 3 May 1990 London Borough Council By-elections - May 1990 to May 1994 London Borough Council Elections - 5 May 1994 London Borough Council Elections - 7 May 1998 London Borough Council Elections - 2 May 2002 Published 1964 to 1982 by the Greater London Council, 1986 by the London Residuary Body, 1990 to 1998 by the London Research Centre, and 2002 by the Greater London Authority. The London Elections 10 June 2004 The Parliamentary General Election 5 May 2005 The London Borough Council General Elections 4 May 2006 Michael Minors Dennis Grenham Copyright: Greater London Authority October 2006 Published by: Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 10: 1 85261 916 3 ISBN 13: 978 1 85261 916 9 Acknowledgements: This publication has grown over two years and the authors recognise the considerable contribution made by the kind help, advice and support given by many people at the GLA. Principal among those have been Anthony Mayer, John Bennett, Rob Lewis, Kelly Rump and Alison Vydulinska. All maps in this publication are based on Ordnance Survey material with permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Offi ce and are © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Greater London Authority) (LA 100032379) (2006). Data from the 2000 and 2004 elections for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly, and from the 2004 election for the European Parliament were provided by the London Elects Team at City Hall. Electronic counting at the elections was undertaken by Data and Research Services plc, on behalf of the Greater London Returning Offi cer. Further information on GLA elections can be found on the London Elects web site: www.londonelects.org.uk. Statistics from the 1999 European Parliamentary election were taken from European Parliamentary Election Expenses, Home Offi ce Statistical Bulletin 16/00, Home Offi ce 2000. Figures on rejected ballot papers at that election were provided separately by the Home Offi ce. Data from the 2001 Parliamentary general election were from The Parliamentary General Election, 2001, DMAG Briefi ng 2004/7, GLA 2004. The 2005 Parliamentary general election data were taken from the Electoral Commission’s web site and modifi ed using Guide to the House of Commons 2005, The Times 2005, and London borough web sites. Data from the 2006 London borough general elections were collected, principally, from the borough elections offi cers, by the GLA Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG). The authors would also like to acknowledge the following sources of the photographs used in this publication: City Hall ceiling - the cover: Adam Hinton; the Assembly Chamber - page 5: Hayley Madden; the European Parliament, Strasbourg - page 23: Atelier Architecture; City Hall - pages 63 and 221: Sarah Dyson; the Assembly Chamber - pages 147, 157 and 163: Hayley Madden. Contents page page Foreword ii Detailed tables - 2004 elections 63 Introduction 1 Results – Assembly constituencies 65 Summary 2 Mayoral election – fi rst preference 65 Mayoral election – second preference 81 The results of the elections 5 Assembly election – constituency members 97 Election for Mayor of London 6 Assembly election – Londonwide members 113 Election for the London Assembly 10 European election 129 Election for the European Parliament 18 Elected Members 21 Statistics – Assembly constituencies 147 Turnout 149 The election statistics 23 Postal ballot papers 150 Turnout 24 Manually-entered ballot papers 151 Spoiled ballot papers 26 Rejected ballot papers 152 Postal ballot papers 28 Manually-entered ballot papers 30 Results – London boroughs 157 Statistics – London boroughs 163 The parties’ performances 33 British National Party 34 Parliamentary election, 2005 - details 173 Conservatives 36 London borough elections, 2006 - details 187 Greens 38 Labour 40 Appendices 221 Liberal Democrats 42 Respect 44 Party codes used 223 United Kingdom Independence Party 46 Nominations 224 Christian People’s Alliance 48 Residents 49 Technical notes 228 Electing members for the London Assembly 228 The parliamentary general election 2005 51 The European Parliament elections 229 The London borough general elections 2006 57 The d’Hondt formula 229 The conduct of the election 229 Electronic counting 230 Manually-entered ballot papers 230 Spoiled ballot papers 231 GLA Data Management and Analysis Group The 2004 London Elections Page i Foreword One of the Greater London Returning Offi cer’s responsibilities is to make sure that the London electorate, and the public in general, are fully informed of the conduct and results of relevant London elections. This was accomplished for the 2000 and 2004 Greater London Authority elections primarily through local posting of nominations and results, and through the publication of an extensive range of data and information on the London Elects web site. This new publication supplements those channels with a more studied and in-depth analysis of the results. It includes all the important information in a format which, it is hoped, will be accessible and useful to those who have not had access to the internet, or who prefer the more traditional forms of publication. The 2004 combined London elections were the most complex ever undertaken in the United Kingdom. Voters elected the Mayor of London, 25 London Assembly Members and nine Members of the European Parliament for the London region. Aside from the European election, these were the second series of elections for the new system of regional government for London, following the inaugural elections in 2000. The election offi cers again used electronic counting to enhance the speed and accuracy of processing. Electronic counting also facilitated the production of detailed analyses of voting for geographic areas smaller than the divisions traditionally used when analysing parliamentary and local authority election results. Anthony Mayer Greater London Returning Offi cer Page ii The 2004 London Elections GLA Data Management and Analysis Group Introduction The electronic counting and analysis used in the 2004 London elections meant entities – the election of the 14 constituency members as one, and the election that although candidates were being elected for Greater London Assembly of the 11 London-wide members as the second. The remainder of the report constituencies (in the Assembly election) and London as a whole (in the generally maintains this distinction, referring to the two parts of the Assembly Mayoral, Assembly and European elections), besides being available for those elections as the Assembly constituency election and the Assembly list election areas (as in 2000), voting details were provided for the fi rst time for the 33 as appropriate. local authority areas in London and for their constituent electoral wards. This last division of wards did not apply to the area covered by the City of London Brief analyses of turnout, rejected ballot papers, postal voting and manually- since several of their 25 electoral wards contain very few or no residents, and entered votes follow. so data were provided instead for the three polling districts used by the City. Throughout the remainder of this report, references to wards in London should The performance of individual parties in the four elections are then studied, be understood to refer to wards in the 32 London boroughs and polling districts using mapping to illustrate voting patterns. in the City of London. The disaggregation of the data into boroughs and wards introduced a small number of discrepancies at these levels which cannot be A brief analysis of the 2005 parliamentary general election is enhanced by reconciled to the offi cial results at constituency level. All of these differences comparison with the 2004 results reworked to approximate to parliamentary are trivial in size. constituencies. A further brief analysis is provided of the 2006 London Borough Council general elections. This report will present the full results of each election for the Assembly constituency areas and summary results for local authority areas. Much analysis The commentary is complemented by a comprehensive set of detailed has been carried out at ward level and summaries are provided in the form of tabulations at Assembly constituency and local authority levels. The election mapping. results are also available on the London Elects web site. The report begins by providing a summary of the fi nal results. It then analyses voting in each of the elections in turn, treating the Assembly election as two GLA Data Management and Analysis Group The 2004 London Elections Page 1 Page 2 The 2004 London Elections GLA Data Management and Analysis Group Summary Just under 2 million people voted in these elections, the second time Londoners of electors chose to vote differently in each election. The table below illustrates had been able to vote for their new-style London government of Mayor and this. Perhaps the most noticeable difference is in the support for the Labour Assembly and, at the same time, for Members of the European Parliament.
Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 506 24 February 2010 No. 44 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 24 February 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: licensing@opsi.gov.uk 281 24 FEBRUARY 2010 282 Ms Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): House of Commons Youth unemployment is a massive problem in Ayrshire, with North Ayrshire having some of the worst levels of Wednesday 24 February 2010 social deprivation in Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the Ayrshire jobs summit, which is taking place tomorrow, and does he agree that economic The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock growth and job creation are key for the most successful future for Ayrshire? PRAYERS Mr. Murphy: It is very important that we take a team Ayrshire approach to trying to overcome youth unemployment, and not just youth unemployment. We [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] are keen to ensure that those over 50, who have perhaps not experienced unemployment or been in a job centre for a considerable period—or perhaps never in their BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS lives—do not become used to unemployment and do not spend that period in advance of their retirement MID STAFFORDSHIRE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST settling for a life on unemployment benefits. It is therefore Resolved, essential that we do more together across all the generations, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That in Ayrshire and across Scotland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anywhere Working City
    The anywhere working city Co-authored by Linda Chandler, Enterprise Architect at Microsoft UK and Phillip Ross, CEO of UnWork.com Contents Executive summary 2| The time has come for technology to make its mark on the evolution of our cities. Exec Summary Historically we have seen geography, politics, transport, architecture and economics playing their part in the moulding of the cityscape but in the 21st Century it is the turn of technology to positively influence the design and planning of our great cities. 2| Introduction The concept of the Anywhere Working City is a highly livable, polycentric megapolis driven by societal expectation of a different way of working, shopping and living, and 3| enabled by new architectures of building, technology and transport. Nomadic workers Beyond the smart city: looking for workspace between head office and home will use innovative third space hubs architecture of a modern city at networked foci around the city and beyond. Pioneering developments in historic cities utopia such as London and Manchester are learning from the boom in emerging cities like Qatar and Shenzhen; that technology, power and transport must be at the foundation of the planning and development process. 5| Third Space The evolution to an Anywhere Working City is driven by over-crowding, environmental concerns, economic factors and society’s desire to work and live in a more balanced way. 7| It’s motivated by the need to save money, comply with stricter environmental legislation 100 mile city and compete for the next generation of employees with demands of a better way of working.
    [Show full text]
  • City Hall Rich List 2020
    City Hall Rich List 2020 Darwin Friend June 2020 Introduction Scrutinising staffing costs at local and national level is a hallmark of our mission to make government more accountable to taxpayers. This principle underpins our annual Town Hall Rich List, which details remuneration of the highest paid people across local government.1 It should also apply to municipal government. The Greater London Authority (GLA) is one of the biggest local authorities in the UK; it includes a number of well-known bodies and a powerful mayor. Sadiq Khan, the current mayor of London, has complained about financial woes, while the staffing costs of City Hall employees have risen by 82 per cent, from £36 million in 2016-17 to £65.5 million in the 2020-21 proposed budget.2 Meanwhile, the mayor has increased the band D council tax precept by just under nine per cent in 2019-20, and London taxpayers have gone from paying £295 in 2015-16 to £332 in 2020-21 for the GLA.3,4 The City Hall Rich List details the employees working for the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, London Fire Brigade and Metropolitan Police whose total remuneration exceeds £100,000. Key findings ▪ There were at least 654 people employed by the GLA and its subsidiary bodies in 2018-19 who received more than £100,000. Of these, 154 received over £150,000 in total remuneration. In 2015-16, 653 received more than £100,000 and 147 employees collected over £150,000. ▪ In 2018-19 the body with the highest number of employees with remuneration in excess of £100,000 was Transport for London, with 518 employees.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation Report 793 795 London Road
    793-795 London Road - proposed red route restrictions Consultation summary July 2016 Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 1 Background ................................................................................................................ 2 2 Scheme description .................................................................................................... 2 3 The consultation ......................................................................................................... 4 4 Overview of consultation responses ............................................................................ 5 5 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ........................................... 7 6 Conclusion and next steps .......................................................................................... 7 Appendix A – Response to issues raised .............................................................................. 8 Appendix B – Consultation Materials ..................................................................................... 9 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ....................................................................... 13 Executive Summary Between 5 February and 17 March 2017, we consulted on proposed changes to parking restrictions at the area in front of 793-795 London Road, Croydon. The consultation received 11 responses, with 7 responses supporting or partially supporting
    [Show full text]
  • In the Sri Lankan Conflict
    INTRODUCTORY NOTES The focus of this study is on ‘external interventions’ in the Sri Lankan conflict – those ostensibly intended to pressurise both the government of Sri Lanka as well as the LTTE to abandon violent confrontation and seek a negotiated settlement of the conflict. Such pressures on the government take several forms, applied with varying levels of intensity and insistence by the different countries with which Sri Lanka maintains close relations – advice and moral persuasion, economic aid being made conditional upon the resumption of ‘peace negotiations’, prohibitions on the sale of arms, providing lavish support to local NGOs that claim to be engaged in the ‘peace effort’, and, above all, threat of action as envisaged in the emerging doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (‘R2P’) against alleged violations of human rights. To the LTTE, with its proclaimed adherence to the belief that terrorist violence is a legitimate instrumentality of ‘liberation struggles’, and ranking as it does among the most violent terrorist outfits in the world, the charge of human rights violations has remained largely inconsequential except where it is given concrete expression in sanctions and proscriptions. To the Sri Lanka government, being placed at par with the Tigers in accusations of human rights violation is, of course, a damning indictment and a humiliating diminution of status in the community of nations. During the period covered by this study (2006-2007), the secessionist campaign of the LTTE suffered major setbacks, exacerbating its earlier losses caused by the Tsunami and the ‘Karuna revolt’. The period has also been featured by an extraordinarily sharp upsurge of external “humanitarian intervention” in the Sri Lankan conflict, the intensity of which has had a remarkable correspondence with the tenor and tempo of LTTE failures.
    [Show full text]
  • Land at Love Lane, Woolwich
    Simon Fowler Avison Young – UK By email only Our Ref: APP/E5330/W/19/3233519 Date: 30 July 2020 Dear Sir CORRECTION NOTICE UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 Land at Love Lane, Grand Depot Road, John Wilson Street, Thomas Street, and Woolwich New Road, Woolwich SE18 6SJ for 1. A request for a correction has been received from Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of the Appellant’s in respect of the Secretary of State’s decision letter on the above case dated 3 June 2020. This request was made before the end of the relevant period for making such corrections under section 56 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the Act), and a decision has been made by the Secretary of State to correct the error. 2. There is a clear typographical error in the IR, specifically at IR12.18 where there is an incorrect reference to Phase 4 when the intention was to refer to Phase 3. The correction relates to this reference only and is reflected in the revised Inspector’s report attached to this letter. 3. Under the provisions of section 58(1) of the Act, the effect of the correction referred to above is that the original decision is taken not to have been made. The decision date for this appeal is the date of this notice, and an application may be made to the High Court within six weeks from the day after the date of this notice for leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Management Advisory Committee Agenda
    Traffic Management Advisory Committee Agenda To: Councillor Stuart King (Chair) Councillors Jane Avis, Sara Bashford, Robert Canning, Vidhi Mohan and Pat Ryan. Reserves: Councillors Jamie Audsley, Simon Brew, Sherwan Chowdhury, Stephen Mann, Andrew Pelling and Andy Stranack. A meeting of the TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE which you are hereby summoned to attend, will be held on Wednesday 8th February 2017 at 6:30 p.m. in F10, Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon. CR0 1NX JACQUELINE HARRIS-BAKER Victoria Lower Acting Council Solicitor and Action Members Services Manager Monitoring Officer 020 8726 6000 ext. 14773 London Borough of Croydon victoria.lower@croydon.gov.uk Bernard Weatherill House www.croydon.gov.uk/agenda 8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA 31 January 2017 Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting. If you require any assistance, please contact Victoria Lower as detailed above. AGENDA - PART A 1. Apologies for absence 2. Minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2016 (Page 1) To approve the minutes as an accurate record. 3. Disclosure of Interest In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality in excess of £50. In addition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Routes 289 and 455 Consultation Report July 2017
    Consultation on proposed changes to bus routes 289 and 455 Consultation Report July 2017 Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 4 Summary of issues raised during consultation ......................................................... 4 Next steps ................................................................................................................ 4 1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Detailed description ........................................................................................ 5 2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 7 2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Potential outcomes ......................................................................................... 7 2.4 Who we consulted .......................................................................................... 7 2.5 Dates and duration ......................................................................................... 7 2.6 What we asked ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Icm Research Job No (1-6) 960416
    ICM RESEARCH JOB NO (1-6) KNIGHTON HOUSE 56 MORTIMER STREET SERIAL NO (7-10) LONDON W1N 7DG TEL: 0171-436-3114 CARD NO (11) 1 2004 LONDON ELECTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION: Good morning/afternoon. I am ⇒ IF NO 2ND CHOICE SAY: from ICM, the independent opinion research Q7 So can I confirm, you only marked one company. We are conducting a survey in this area choice in the London Assembly election? today and I would be grateful if you could help by (14) answering a few questions … Yes 1 No 2 ⇒ CHECK QUOTAS AND CONTINUE IF ON Don’t know 3 QUOTA Q1 First of all, in the recent election for the ***TAKE BACK THE BALLOT PAPERS*** new London Mayor and Assembly many people were not able to go and vote. Can you tell me, did ♦ SHOW CARD Q8 you manage to go to the polling station and cast Q8 When you were voting in the elections for your vote? the London Assembly and London Mayor, what (12) was most important to you? Of the following Yes 1 possible answers, can you let me know which were No 2 the two most important as far as you were Don’t know 3 concerned (15) ⇒ IF NO/DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q9 Q2 Here is a version of the ballot paper like the These elections were a chance to let one used for the MAYOR ELECTION. the national government know what 1 (INTERVIEWER: HAND TO RESPONDENT). Could you think about national issues you please mark with an X who you voted for as I felt it was my duty to vote 2 your FIRST choice as London Mayor? MAKE SURE Choosing the best people to run 3 RESPONDENT MARKS BALLOT PAPER IN London CORRECT COLUMN I wanted to support a particular party 4 I wanted to let the government know Q3 And could you mark with an X who you my view on the Iraq war 5 voted for as your SECOND choice? ? MAKE SURE RESPONDENT MARKS BALLOT PAPER IN ⇒ VOTERS SKIP TO Q16 CORRECT COLUMN Q9 Here is a version of the ballot paper like the ND one used for the MAYOR ELECTION.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr Andrew Mackay and Ms Julie Kirkbride
    House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Mr Andrew Mackay and Ms Julie Kirkbride Fifth Report of Session 2010–11 Report and Appendices, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 19 October2010 HC 540 Published on 21 October 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Committee on Standards and Privileges The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary. Current membership Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole) Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) Mr Jim Cunningham MP (Labour, Coventry South) Mr Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Eric Ollerenshaw MP (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Policing in the 21St Century
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Policing in the 21st Century Seventh Report of Session 2007–08 Volume II Oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 30 October 2008 HC 364-II Published on 10 October 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chairman) Tom Brake MP (Liberal Democrat, Charshalton and Wallington) Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Regent’s Park and Kensington North) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) David TC Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) Mrs Janet Dean MP (Labour, Burton) Patrick Mercer MP (Conservative, Newark) Margaret Moran MP (Labour, Luton South) Gwyn Prosser MP (Labour, Dover) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Martin Salter MP (Labour, Reading West) Mr Gary Streeter MP (Conservative, South West Devon) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Member was also a Member of the Committee during the inquiry: Mr Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Branching out the Future for London's Street Trees
    EMBARGOED until 00.01am on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 Environment Committee Branching Out The future for London's street trees April 2011 EMBARGOED until 00.01am on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 EMBARGOED until 00.01am on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 Environment Committee Branching Out The future for London's street trees April 2011 Cover image source: George Raszka EMBARGOED until 00.01am on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 Copyright Greater London Authority April 2011 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN This publication is printed on recycled paper EMBARGOED until 00.01am on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 Environment Committee Members Darren Johnson Green (Chair) Murad Qureshi Labour (Deputy Chair) Gareth Bacon Conservative James Cleverly Conservative Roger Evans Conservative Nicky Gavron Labour Mike Tuffrey Liberal Democrat The Environment Committee agreed the following terms of reference for its investigation on 1 December 2010 • To examine what progress has been made for street trees in London since the committee’s 2007 report; and • What the future holds for street trees, and where responsibility for planting and maintenance will lie. The Committee would welcome feedback on this report. For further information contact: Jo Sloman, Assistant Scrutiny Manager, on 020 7983 4942 or Jo.Sloman@london.gov.uk. For media enquiries please contact: Lisa Moore on 020 7983 4228 or Lisa.Moore@london.gov.uk; or Julie Wheldon on 020 7983 4228 or Julie.Wheldon@london.gov.uk
    [Show full text]