DOCSLIB.ORG

London Assembly Planning Committee – 30 January 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London Assembly Planning Committee – 30 January 2018 Appendix 1 London Assembly Planning Committee – 30 January 2018 Transcript of Agenda Item 4 – Mayoral Consultation – Draft London Plan Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): As I said earlier, this Committee is responding on behalf of the whole Assembly to the Mayor’s consultation draft. This is the second of two meetings that we are having, although we have a whole body of evidence from many, many previous Planning Committee meetings, and of course the other Committees are going to give us evidence because they are also looking at the draft London Plan. Our first panel today is on London’s heritage, its historic fabric, its views, its built environment and its conservation areas. Also, we might touch on its natural heritage and the river. The second panel is on open space, which of course also overlaps with the natural heritage. Before we go into our questioning, panel, it would be a good idea for each of you to introduce yourselves so that those people who are watching can know who you are. Could you give us just one line about what you do and who you represent, starting at that end? David English (Historic Places Principal, Historic England): My name is David English. I am Historic Places Principal at Historic England. I lead a team of planners involved with the London Plan for about the last 18 months. We have also have been involved with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) mission to Westminster last February and I work with the boroughs, looking at their planning policy. Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): Very succinct. Thank you. Chloe Clay (Urban Design and Development Lead, Royal Borough of Kingston): I am Chloe Clay. I am Team Lead for Urban Design and Development at Kingston Council. I lead up a team of six different specialists, advising on planning applications and also delivering in-house supplementary planning guidance (SPG). Charles Wagner (Co-Chair, Spatial Planning Advisory Group, Heritage Alliance): I am Charles Wagner. I am a heritage and planning consultant. I am Co-Chair of the Spatial Planning Advisory Group of the Heritage Alliance. The Heritage Alliance is England’s largest coalition of independent heritage interests. It was set up to promote the central role of the non-governmental movement in the heritage sector. We unite 113 organisations, which together have over seven million members, volunteers, trustees and staff. Indeed, the vast majority of England’s historic environment is owned, managed and cared for by Heritage Alliance members. Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): Thank you. Michael Coupe (Planning and Transport Committee, London Forum): My name is Michael Coupe. I used to be Head of Planning and Regeneration at the former English Heritage. I am now so distant from that job that I am practically listable myself. I am a freelance consultant. I work mainly pro bono, I like to think on the side of the good guys. Otherwise, I sell antiquarian books. Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): We are also interested in your role on the London Forum. Michael Coupe (Planning and Transport Committee, London Forum): Yes, sorry. I am part of the -- Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): It is very important because we want to have a spread of expertise, including people who are meeting and working with people who are extraordinary citizens. Michael Coupe (Planning and Transport Committee, London Forum): Yes. I am on the Planning and Transport Committee of the London Forum, which represents all the civic societies around London. Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): Thank you. Nairita Chakraborty (Principal Conservation Officer, London Borough of Haringey): Good morning. I am Nairita Chakraborty. I am the Principal Conservation Officer at Haringey Council. I have been working in the field of conservation and urban design for over 11 years. I have worked in three different local authorities, two of which have been within London. Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): Thank you all for that. All right. Now we are going to have two panels and we want to close this session at about 11.30am, just so that you are aware of the time. We have to be. We have a lot of questions, but we want everyone to be very succinct. Today, we are not having general statements about things. What we are trying to do is to look at the Plan and say what is good about it, but particularly the meeting is mainly about whether there are areas that we want to improve. Our experience has been that if something is very important, it ought to be in the policy box. If it is in the text, however good it is, if it is not reflecting a policy, it does not have anything like the material consideration or weight of a policy in a box, just so everyone is aware of that. We are going to start with the World Heritage Sites and Tony Devenish, who is a Councillor for Westminster [City Council] and so who better? Tony Devenish AM: Thank you, Chair. If we start with Mr English and work our way down, please, in relation to London’s World Heritage Sites, how do you view UNESCO’s concerns that there are challenges from incremental developments that will put them at risk, potentially? David English (Historic Places Principal, Historic England): Fundamentally, we agree that incremental development is a challenge. The policies in the new London Plan make reference to cumulative impacts and the need to assess them, which is really welcome. That is a positive step, responding directly to the recommendations of the monitoring mission. However, there are one or two points, if you read across the Plan, which are particularly relevant to World Heritage Sites. As I am sure you will know, at Westminster, a lot of the problems which drew the mission there in the first place related not to Westminster itself but to Opportunity Areas in Vauxhall Nine Elms and at Waterloo. It is the Opportunity Area Policy that we have particularly picked up on as being a bit of a concern for the treatment of World Heritage Sites and where we think there needs to be perhaps some changes to the policy. This is particularly relevant with the Opportunity Area near the Great West Corridor in Hounslow, which is very close to Kew. There is likely to be a public inquiry later this year for a tall building, which is in that area and could affect the World Heritage Site at Kew. Within the Opportunity Area -- Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): Is this the Curve? David English (Historic Places Principal, Historic England): It is the Curve, yes. Within the Opportunity Area Policy, there is a line which says about Opportunity Areas being allowed to define their own character and density, which seems quite a strong push towards very tall buildings that pay no regard to their context. That is something from our perspective that we would want to see adapted or changed so that there is some recognition of context so that you do not get situations where you have very tall buildings in the setting of World Heritage Sites which spoil their outstanding universal value. Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): You think we need to look at that part of the London Plan? David English (Historic Places Principal, Historic England): Yes. Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): All right. Tony Devenish AM: Do you have any wording for that? Not now, but the point the Chair did not make but we are going to make: if you can provide short written evidence afterwards, that will be really helpful. Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): Well done, Tony. Yes, I should have said that. David English (Historic Places Principal, Historic England): I would be very happy to do that. Tony Devenish AM: Thank you. Ms Clay, do you want to comment? Chloe Clay (Urban Design and Development Lead, Royal Borough of Kingston): Kingston does not have any World Heritage Sites within it and so we -- Nicky Gavron AM (Chair): I do not think everyone needs to comment. Tony Devenish AM: No, OK. I will move on to my second question, which is fairly similar to number one. What is your view on UNESCO’s fears that, despite the London Plan and borough plan policies, there is, I quote, “a disconnect between the good intentions of the policies and the buildings that are being constructed”, end quote, which negatively impact on London’s heritage? It is similar to the first question but, Mr English, do you have anything else to add? David English (Historic Places Principal, Historic England): This is really about implementation and it definitely applies across the built environment for London’s heritage and so it is one which is relevant to everyone. In terms of improving implementation, that was an issue with the previous or the existing Plan. We commissioned various pieces of research, one of which said that some of the policies in the current Plan are not that bad, but the implementation has not been very good. In terms of improving that implementation, having a clearer steer from the Mayor about the types of development he wants to see would be helpful. There are some really great words in the Plan about heritage, but there are places where he could be clearer. Mayoral decisions, again, send a very clear signal to the industry about what will be acceptable and what will not be acceptable. We will get on to later the key performance indicator (KPI), but that is a very positive thing, potentially, to help with implementation and making sure that that is monitored. From our perspective, having something like an SPG or a Heritage Strategy would be really helpful with implementation because, again, it will let boroughs know, it will let neighbourhood forums know, it will let civic groups know and it will let developers know what the Mayor’s position is in a bit more detail and how he thinks people should be approaching the historic environment, not just in the kind of overview that you can get in a plan like this, but in the everyday.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City Villages: More Homes, Better Communities, IPPR
    CITY VILLAGES MORE HOMES, BETTER COMMUNITIES March 2015 © IPPR 2015 Edited by Andrew Adonis and Bill Davies Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to conduct and publish the results of research into and promote public education in the economic, social and political sciences, and in science and technology, including the effect of moral, social, political and scientific factors on public policy and on the living standards of all sections of the community. IPPR 4th Floor 14 Buckingham Street London WC2N 6DF T: +44 (0)20 7470 6100 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org Registered charity no. 800065 This book was first published in March 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions expressed in this collection are those of the authors only. CITY VILLAGES More homes, better communities Edited by Andrew Adonis and Bill Davies March 2015 ABOUT THE EDITORS Andrew Adonis is chair of trustees of IPPR and a former Labour cabinet minister. Bill Davies is a research fellow at IPPR North. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editors would like to thank Peabody for generously supporting the project, with particular thanks to Stephen Howlett, who is also a contributor. The editors would also like to thank the Oak Foundation for their generous and long-standing support for IPPR’s programme of housing work.
    [Show full text]
  • London Plan 2004
    Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document or its summary, please contact us at the address below: Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100 City Hall www.london.gov.uk The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require. The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London If you would like a copy of the summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the Plan The London address above. Chinese Hindi Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Greater for Spatial Development Strategy Vietnamese Bengali Greek Urdu Turkish Arabic Punjabi Gujarati February 2004 City Hall www.london.gov.uk The Queen’s Walk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 London SE1 2AA Minicom 020 7983 4458 MoL/Feb 04/CJ D&P/MT/448A The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London February 2004 copyright Greater London Authority February 2004 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 1 85261 544 3 Cover photograph Adam Hinton This document is printed on 50 per cent post consumer recycled paper, 50 per cent totally chlorine free pulp, and printed with vegetable oil based inks. Acknowlegements The Mayor would like to thank everyone who contributed to this plan including the Independent Panel, all participants at the Examination in Public and everyone else who responded to the public consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • New-Build `Gentrification' and London's Riverside Renaissance
    Environment and Planning A 2005, volume 37, pages 1165 ^ 1190 DOI:10.1068/a3739 New-build `gentrification' and London's riverside renaissance Mark Davidson, Loretta Lees Department of Geography, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, England; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Received 3 February 2004; in revised form 5 August 2004 Abstract. In a recent conference paper Lambert and Boddy (2002) questioned whether new-build residential developments in UK city centres were examples of gentrification. They concluded that this stretched the term too far and coined `residentialisation' as an alternative term. In contrast, we argue in this paper that new-build residential developments in city centres are examples of gentrification. We argue that new-build gentrification is part and parcel of the maturation and mutation of the gentrification process during the post-recession era. We outline the conceptual cases for and against new-build `gentrification', then, using the case of London's riverside renaissance, we find in favour of the case for. ``In the last decade the designer apartment blocks built by corporate developers for elite consumption have become as characteristic of gentrified landscapes as streetscapes of lovingly restored Victorian terraces. As gentrification continues to progress and exhibit new forms and patterns, it seems unnecessary to confine the concept to residential rehabilitation.'' Shaw (2002, page 44) 1 Introduction Recent gentrification research has begun to highlight the challenges that current waves of gentrification pose towards its conceptualisation (Lees, 2003a; Slater, 2004). In the last decade gentrification has matured and its processes are operating in a new economic, cultural, social, and political environment.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001 GA Ann Report.A/W
    Printed by Seacourt Press Limited on recycled paper made from 75% de-inked post consumer waste and a maximum of 25% mill broke. Seacourt have EMAS and ISO14001 accreditation, are members of the waterless printing association and their carbon emissions are offset. EMAS registration number UK-5-0000073. annual report 2000/01 our mission Green Alliance exists to promote sustainable development by ensuring that the environment is at the heart of decision-making We work with senior people in government, parliament, business and the environment movement to encourage new ideas, dialogue and constructive solutions. Green Alliance has three main aims: > to make the environment a central political issue > to integrate the environment effectively in public policy and decision-making > to stimulate new thinking and advance the environmental agenda into new areas The publication of this report has been supported by Severn Trent plc and the DEFRA Environmental Action Fund chair’s report Green Alliance’s increased strategic focus over the past two years is paying dividends. Our efforts to engage the Prime Minister and his officials on the environment succeeded, with Tony Blair’s speech to a Green Alliance/CBI audience in October 2000. This was by no means the end of a process, but opened a new dialogue between the Prime Minister and environment groups. Another success was the publication of our detailed, consensual work on the role of negotiated agreements between government and business. This charts a course through opposing views, laying down a model of best practice of which government, business and NGOs can feel ownership. Two Green Alliance pamphlets received considerable attention.
    [Show full text]
  • London Assembly (Mayor’S Question Time) – 21 October 2015
    Appendix 1 London Assembly (Mayor’s Question Time) – 21 October 2015 Transcript of Agenda Item 4 – Oral Update on the Report of the Mayor Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Mayor, do you need five minutes to update us on any matters? Boris Johnson MP (Mayor of London): I do not know how long I need, but I will give you a quick report, Jennette. Just to remind the Assembly, we have had a record number of affordable homes but also in the last few weeks I was able to announce that 52,000 Londoners on modest incomes have moved into part-buy/part-rent homes. These are incredibly important because so many Londoners want to get a share in the value of their home. I went to see a fantastic project up at Waltham Forest at Gallery Court in Fulbourne Road where there are about 124 mixed-tenure apartments. The average starting outlay is about £63,750. We have deposits for as little as £5,000, averaging £13,000 for the deposit for the purchase. Average household wages for these homes are about £37,000. If you can imagine two people with a collective income of £37,000, it is really within Londoners’ reach. That was a wonderful project to see. We have launched a report on the dynamism of London’s creative industries, which are now worth almost £35 billion to the economy. That seems to have more than doubled. The last figure I used to use was £16 billion and so it seems to have gone up massively.
    [Show full text]
  • DVS Phase 1 Consultation Report
    Direct Vision Standards Consultation results November 2017 Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 2 Methodology for analysis of consultation responses ......................................... 2 3 Analysis of responses to closed question ......................................................... 3 4 Analysis of responses to open question ......................................................... 19 5 Responses from stakeholders ........................................................................ 50 Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted……………………………………………65 Appendix B - Stakeholder email..………………………………………………………...72 1 1 Introduction Between 24 January and 18 April 2017, we consulted on proposals to introduce a Direct Vision Standard for HGVs in London. This forms part of the Mayor’s commitment to reduce road danger through the adoption of a ‘Vision Zero’ approach. This document summarises the results to the consultation. About the proposals Much progress has been made through working in partnership with the freight industry to improve HGV safety, including HGV design, but we need to go further. Evidence shows that HGV drivers react more quickly using direct vision where they can see more of their surroundings directly through their windows, as opposed to indirectly through mirrors or monitors. This has the potential to reduce the risk of fatal or serious collisions. The proposals included introducing a new simple Direct Vision Standard which would rate vehicles from zero (poor) to five star (excellent) based on how much a HGV driver can see directly from a vehicle cab, rather than through other equipment such as mirrors. The aim of which is to give regulators, manufacturers, operators and contractors an objective standard by which to rate and improve the safety of HGVs. The proposals also included using this standard to ban or restrict HGVs with the most limited direct vision from London’s roads.
    [Show full text]
  • MPA Members Attendance Record 2007/08
    APPENDIX 1 MPA member attendance record 2007/08 Figures in brackets are the number of committee meetings held during the year; figures not in brackets are the numbers actually attended by that member. Anthony Arbour Full Authority: (9) - 9 Remuneration: (3) - 2 PPR*: (7) – 2 PSC: (6) – 2 Total: (25) - 15 Jennette Arnold Full Authority: (9) - 8 CoP: (6) - 3 Corp. Governance: (3) - 1 Remuneration: (3) - 1 Total: (22) – 13 Reshard Auladin Full Authority (9) - 8 CoP: (6) - 5 Finance*: (9) - 6 Remuneration: (3) - 2 PPR*: (7) - 6 PSC: (6) - 5 Total: (40) - 32 Richard Barnes Full Authority (9) - 8 CoP: (6) - 3 Finance*: (9) - 2 PPR*: (7) - 1 (resigned from ctee Sept. 07) Total: (31) - 14 Faith Boardman Full Authority: (9) - 7 CoP (6) - 6 Corp. Governance (3) - 3 Finance* (9) - 1 PPR* (7) - 1 Total: (34) - 18 Cindy Butts Full Authority: (9) - 9 CoP (6) - 6 EODB (4) - 3 Remuneration (3) - 2 Total: (22) - 19 Dee Doocey Full Authority (9) - 6 Finance*: (9) - 5 Total: (18) - 11 Len Duvall Full Authority (9) - 8 CoP: (6) - 5 Remuneration: (3) - 2 Total: (18) - 15 Nicky Gavron Full Authority (9) - 6 Total: (9) - 6 Toby Harris Full Authority (9) - 7 CoP: (6) - 5 Corp. Governance: (3) - 3 Total: (18) - 15 Kirsten Hearn Full Authority: (9) - 7 CoP: (6) - 4 EODB: (4) - 4 Total: (19) - 15 Peter Herbert Full Authority (9) - 9 EODB: (4) - 1 Total (13) - 10 Damian Hockney Full Authority: (9) - 4 (Resigned as Member CoP: (6) - 1 March 2008) EODB: (4) - 1 PSC: (6) - 2 Standards: (1) – 0 Finance*: (9) - 0 Total: (35) - 8 Elizabeth Howlett Full Authority: (9) - 8 CoP: (6) - 6 Finance*: (9) - 8 PSC: (6) - 3 Total: (33) - 24 Jenny Jones Full Authority (9) - 8 PSC: (6) - 2 Total: (15) - 10 Joanne McCartney Full Authority: (9) - 7 Total: (9) - 7 Karim Murji Full Authority: (9) - 8 CoP: (6) - 5 PPR*: (7) - 7 PSC: (6) - 6 Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mayor Is Elected by the People of London Every
    14523 GLA Mayor lflt AW 10/9/02 3:42 PM Page 1 The Mayor is elected by the people of London The Mayor’s vision every four years. The next election will be in Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, wants 2004. The current Mayor is Ken Livingstone, who London to be: was elected in May 2000. • A prosperous city, in which all share in The Mayor represents London and Londoners, in the benefits of wealth created in London’s the UK and internationally. He takes a strategic dynamic economy. look at what is happening in London, drawing • A city for people, with safe, attractive streets, up policies for the social and economic where goods and services are within easy reach development of the city. and where everyone feels safe and secure. The Mayor’s powers and responsibilities are set • An accessible city, with fast, efficient and out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. comfortable means of transport and access to This Act also covers the London Assembly and affordable homes, education and training, the Greater London Authority (GLA). health, leisure and recreation. • A fair city, showing tolerance and abolishing all forms of discrimination, where neighbourhoods and communities have a say in their future. • A green city, making efficient use of natural resources and energy, respecting the natural world and wildlife, using to the full the varied pattern of open space, eco-friendly design and construction methods, recycling waste and creating new ‘green’ industries. The job of the Mayor The Mayor sets the budget for the Metropolitan The Deputy Mayor Police Service (under the oversight of the The Mayor appoints one of the London Assembly Metropolitan Police Authority), Transport for members to be Deputy Mayor.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Before Starting These Questions, Has Any Relevance to the Value, Function Or Effectiveness of London Power
    Appendix 2 London Assembly Environment Committee - Wednesday 24 February 2021 Transcript of Agenda Item 5 – London’s Green Recovery from COVID-19 – Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Councils Caroline Russell AM (Chair): [Mayor] Philip [Granville] is joining us on the next panel and I will also welcome Shirley Rodrigues, who is Deputy Mayor for Environment [and Energy] at the GLA; Elliot Treharne, who is Interim Assistant Director for Environment and Energy at the GLA; Peter Daw, who is Interim Assistant Director for Environment and Energy at the GLA; and once again Mayor Philip Glanville, who is Chair of the Transport and Environment Committee for London Councils. I am now going to invite Shirley to give a brief opening statement and then we will move on to Nicky Gavron [AM], who will be asking the first lot of questions. Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, Greater London Authority): First of all, I want to say thank you for the invitation and thanks to the Committee for your excellent work over this last term. At the risk of déjà vu, thanks to Assembly Members Nicky Gavron, Jennette Arnold and Tony Arbour, who are stepping down at this election after a rather unexpected and unwanted extension to their term. In terms of what we are going to be talking about today, as you know, the Mayor’s ambition is for London to be the greenest of all cities and we have set some very tough targets to meet: zero waste, zero carbon, the best air quality of any major world city, and thriving and green and biodiverse spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Mayor's Office
    Mayor’s Office City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Minicom: 020 7983 4458 David Scourfield Web: www.london.gov.uk Our ref: 1573b/02 Development Management Your ref: 2011/0898 Waltham Forest Council Date: 30 October 2012 Sycamore House Town Hall Complex Forest Road Walthamstow LONDON E17 4JG Dear Mr Scourfield, Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The former Walthamstow Greyhound Stadium site I refer to your letter of 18 October 2012 informing me that Waltham Forest Council is minded to grant planning permission for the above planning application. I refer you also to the notice that was issued on 24 October 2012 under the provisions of article 5(1)(b)(i) of the above Order. Having now considered a report on this case I am content to allow Waltham Forest Council to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and do not therefore wish to direct refusal or to take over the application for my own determination. I share the sadness of many about the demise of dog racing from this historic corner of London. However, I believe this proposal will provide a major boost for Walthamstow, creating new jobs and new homes, many of which will be affordable and attract desperately needed new investment into the area. Whilst no viable plan has been put forward to bring racing back I am pleased the new development will preserve many of the historic elements of the stadium including a sprint circuit along the route of the old track.
    [Show full text]
  • London's Political
    CONSTITUENCY MP (PARTY) MAJORITY Barking Margaret Hodge (Lab) 15,272 Battersea Jane Ellison (Con) 7,938 LONDON’S Beckenham Bob Stewart (Con) 18,471 Bermondsey & Old Southwark Neil Coyle (Lab) 4,489 Bethnal Green & Bow Rushanara Ali (Lab) 24,317 Bexleyheath & Crayford David Evennett (Con) 9,192 POLITICAL Brent Central Dawn Butler (Lab) 19,649 Brent North Barry Gardiner (Lab) 10,834 Brentford & Isleworth Ruth Cadbury (Lab) 465 Bromley & Chislehurst Bob Neill (Con) 13,564 MAP Camberwell & Peckham Harriet Harman (Lab) 25,824 Carshalton & Wallington Tom Brake (LD) 1,510 Chelsea & Fulham Greg Hands (Con) 16,022 This map shows the political control Chingford & Woodford Green Iain Duncan Smith (Con) 8,386 of the capital’s 73 parliamentary Chipping Barnet Theresa Villiers (Con) 7,656 constituencies following the 2015 Cities of London & Westminster Mark Field (Con) 9,671 General Election. On the other side is Croydon Central Gavin Barwell (Con) 165 Croydon North Steve Reed (Lab [Co-op]) 21,364 a map of the 33 London boroughs and Croydon South Chris Philp (Con) 17,410 details of the Mayor of London and Dagenham & Rainham Jon Cruddas (Lab) 4,980 London Assembly Members. Dulwich & West Norwood Helen Hayes (Lab) 16,122 Ealing Central & Acton Rupa Huq (Lab) 274 Ealing North Stephen Pound (Lab) 12,326 Ealing, Southall Virendra Sharma (Lab) 18,760 East Ham Stephen Timms (Lab) 34,252 Edmonton Kate Osamor (Lab [Co-op]) 15,419 Eltham Clive Efford (Lab) 2,693 Enfield North Joan Ryan (Lab) 1,086 Enfield, Southgate David Burrowes (Con) 4,753 Erith & Thamesmead
    [Show full text]
  • Easy Read Guide
    How the London Assembly works for you Easy Read Guide LONDONASSEMBLY Contents What is the London Assembly? 3 A map of London Assembly Members 5 Who are the Members of the London Assembly? 6 What does the London Assembly do? 13 Can I watch meetings of the London Assembly? 14 What does the London Assembly not deal with? 15 What is the London Youth Assembly? 17 The Mayor of London 18 Key Word Glossary 19 How to get in touch with your local London Assembly Member 20 London Assembly Easy Read | Page 2 What is the London Assembly? The London Assembly meets at City Hall in London. Members of the London Assembly are elected. This means people in London get to decide which Assembly Members they would like to: • hold the Mayor of London to account • work to make London better • explore a range of issues important to Londoners • make decisions for Londoners and London. Assembly Members can ask questions of the Mayor of London at Mayor’s Question Time. The Assembly Members also take part in other meetings to talk about topics important to London and Londoners. London Assembly Easy Read | Page 3 There are 14 Assembly Members that represent different areas across London. There are also 11 other Assembly Members. They represent the whole of London. The Assembly Members are elected by you and other Londoners every four years. The next election is Thursday 6 May 2021. Register to vote by Tuesday 19 April 2021. Instructions on how to register to vote can be found at Londonelects.org.uk or you can send an email to [email protected].
    [Show full text]