HC Deb 19 February 1998 vol 306 cc1233-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

6.33 pm
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney)

I assure the House that I do not intend to speak for the next three and a half hours, as I understand that it would be within the rules of the House to do. However, if the subject for debate were the Queen Mary's hospital, a major issue in my constituency, I should do so. I hope that Madam Speaker will allow an Adjournment debate on that subject at an early date.

This is also not a debate about the millennium dome. I support the development of that dome, the structure and the exhibition—as, I believe, do most UK residents—as it is needed to provide for all of us a clear picture of where we have come from and a vision of the country and the world that we can become. It is that sense of vision that is missing from so much of the riverside development on the River Thames.

I do not intend to cover all 127 miles of the River Thames, but I understand that my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Battersea (Mr. Linton) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to their constituencies. I shall primarily be talking about my own constituency.

Putney has had two major areas of riverside development under planning applications again—I say "again" because they come again and again—in the past six months. The first is what I call the Putney church area, known for the start of the boat race and covering three different land holdings and three different proposals—Brewhouse street, a hotel, restaurant and luxury flat development, turned down by the council and now on appeal to the Minister; the ICL tower, again proposed for restaurants and luxury flats; and the Castle public house which, surprise, surprise, involves further proposals for hotels, luxury flats and a restaurant. They are all in a tiny area and, if built, will tower above Deodar road and neighbouring streets and Putney church. There is no co-ordinated approach. The council is trying to get the three landowners to work together.

The second area is the Wandle delta, part of which is a Shell site abutting the Thames, the planning application for which was called in by the Minister with an inquiry date next June. Wandsworth council has today published an excellent urban design framework for the Wandle delta, which I hope will ensure that all the land between the Arndale centre and the Thames will be dealt with in a co-ordinated way. It is extraordinary that that vision has come six months after the planners decided that they wished to go ahead with the Shell site. The new document which has come forward has a much more co-ordinated and sustainable vision.

From that vision will come a new riverside quarter for London with a range of activities, including the Renue centre for renewable energy, which was the subject of a successful millennium bid, backed by Wandsworth and Merton councils. The councils also announced that new planning guidance will be coming out for the Putney church area.

Developers obviously try it on. Applications are made for inappropriately high, bulky and ugly buildings. Always there seems to be the same mix of expensive flats, restaurants and hotels built hard up to the river with little or no access for the public.

Both the Putney church area and the Wandle delta area have been the subject of intense lobbying from local amenity groups, to which I have listened. They include the Putney society, the Deodar road residents association, the Wandsworth society and many others. I hope that, after those battles, coherent, sustainable and acceptable plans can be agreed. As the Minister has a significant role in the planning applications, I accept that he may not wish to comment on them in any detail, so I intend to deal with the general need for riverside development on the River Thames.

Why are those battles needed? In February 1997, the previous Government issued RPG 2B—strategic planning guidance for the River Thames. It was welcomed on all sides. Among other objectives for the built environment was the need to secure a special quality for all new development on the river and riverside, appropriate"— that is important— to its context and to improve the existing Townscape. I strongly agree with that.

What has gone wrong? I do not believe that prime responsibility for planning applications should be taken away from local councils—how could I, as a former council leader? Wandsworth council has made strange decisions over the years and I expect that my hon. Friends will point those out. It is for local electors to decide whom they want to take those decisions and, on 7 May, I expect a Labour council to be elected in Wandsworth, which will better understand the needs of local people than the current council has in recent years.

Guidance is needed for the planning framework. Will the Minister therefore respond to the following points? First, may we have a reconstituted Thames working party now, to ensure that the Thames guidance is carried through with all the interests involved? The Greater London Authority, which I very much welcome, will be able to lead on that when it is constituted in 2000, but we cannot wait two years and allow inappropriate development in the meantime. We need to implement the guidance now.

Secondly, can the guidance be addressed to all the key players? At present, it is addressed only to councils, whereas it should be addressed to all the arms of government, the Port of London Authority, private sector interests, the River Thames Society and all the organisations involved with the river, in terms of what happens both on it and on its banks.

Thirdly, can we push for good design? We need a proactive riverside landscape appraisal, particularly from Hammersmith to Tower Bridge, to complement the existing landscape appraisal for the more open area upstream in Richmond. I hear that there are problems upstream, such as the developments proposed by Thames Water for the land opposite Hampton Court.

Fourthly, may we have a commitment to river transport? The guidance promotes that, but it is not in the borough's powers to provide piers or services. The Thames 2000 initiative, led by Judith Mayhew and incorporating London Transport's London River Services Ltd. is excellent, and I commend it to the House. However, the furthest new pier planned upstream is at Millbank, which is excellent for the Government Office for London and, dare I say, for the Labour party, but not much use for residents upstream. We want piers and services all the way up, specifically at Putney church and the Wandle delta.

Fifthly, as the first London Agenda 21 sub-region, may we have a new unitary development plan based on sustainable development along the River Thames? I strongly commend to the House the new guidance on sustainable development. This would be an excellent area in which to launch it.

In the past 15 years, the Coin street development has shown that it is possible, in the heart of London and on some of the most expensive land in London, to have parks, social housing, workshops, playgrounds and, for those who want it, a Harvey Nichols restaurant at the top of the Oxo tower. However, too much of the Thames waterfront is now planned with a Harvey Nichols clientele in mind. Let us hope that future generations of Londoners will praise us for our foresight in getting it right for all Londoners.

6.42 pm
Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for raising the issue of development along the River Thames. I endorse everything that he said about the London borough of Wandsworth. As his neighbour, I can provide some even more dramatic examples of strange planning decisions as we move downstream from the Shell site to my constituency of Battersea.

On paper, Wandsworth has some enlightened policies for the riverside. It has height guidelines of six storeys from Wandsworth bridge to Battersea bridge; nine storeys from Battersea bridge to Albert bridge; and seven storeys as far as Vauxhall. The problem is that, in practice, Wandsworth council ignores its own guidelines. It supported an application from Richard Rogers to build a 20-storey block of flats just a few yards from Battersea's beautiful Georgian parish church, St. Mary's. It was called in, and later approved, by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment.

Wandsworth council now has an application from Sir Norman Foster to build a 20-storey block between Battersea and Albert bridges, where the guideline height is only nine stories. The developer is Li Ka-shing, who contributed generously to the Conservative party's election war chest. We should be told whether any of that money found its way to the Conservative party in Wandsworth. Wandsworth council is about to receive another application from Sir Norman Foster for a development on Gargoyle wharf—better known as the Guinness site and the site of the famous "Land is Ours" occupation—for a 30-storey block where the guideline height is only six storeys.

I have no objection, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has none, to having two of the best-known architects in Britain engaged in a competition to see who can design the best or the most beautiful building for the Battersea riverside. However, that competition should be limited to the design of the building and should not be a competition to see who can build the highest building. Battersea is not the city centre, so it would be completely out of place to have 20 or 30-storey buildings along our riverside, just as it would be further upstream in Putney.

The architectural press make it sound as though I am against modern architecture for the sake of it. I am making a point not about styles of architecture but about the height of buildings, their density and the type of housing proposed. The stretch of river between the Albert and Battersea bridges is opposite one of the most elegant riversides in London on the Chelsea side, and we should seek a riverside policy that complements rather than dwarfs the other side.

Battersea needs no more landmarks. It already has one of the biggest in the country—Battersea power station—and Wandsworth council has made a big enough mess of that over the years. It has been lying idle for more than 10 years, but building will finally get under way this year.

We need three policies. First, we need a consistent approach to the riverside, all the way from Putney downstream. Secondly, we need a mixture of housing tenure. Many of the sites that are becoming vacant along the riverside are big enough to accommodate both riverside housing and affordable housing behind it. This is an excellent opportunity. The Government are committed to the principle of affordable housing on large sites and Wandsworth council is committed to it on paper. We must ensure that those opportunities are used because Battersea has a pressing need for affordable housing. Many sons and daughters of people who have lived there for generations are being forced to move out because of the lack of affordable housing.

Thirdly, we need public access to the riverside. For 100 years, the people of Battersea and Putney have lived behind an industrial riverside frontage, which used to provide jobs but most of which has now become redundant. It is giving way to residential development, which provides an opportunity, for the first time in many generations, to give the people of Battersea access to their riverside.

The imaginative treatment of those developments can ensure not only that there is good housing along the riverside but that the people who live behind that housing can enjoy the river, not only through riverside walkways but through parks and open spaces, which can complement imaginative housing developments. Coin street is an example of imaginative use of the riverside to help both local residents and the wider public.

On paper, Wandsworth council is committed to all those principles—public access to the riverside, affordable housing, and height and density guidelines—but in practice it does not implement its guidelines. If it fails to implement its guidelines in future, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do that.

6.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for initiating the debate, and associate myself with what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said about the preciousness of our River Thames. I hope that, on some occasion during the current Parliament, we will be able to focus on the Thames in more detail, involving all hon. Members with riparian interests—perhaps on a Wednesday morning. The narrow issue raised by the debate, however—the development of the riverside frontage—allows me to make some important comments about my part of the river.

The borough of Thurrock, which I represent along with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), has some 30 km of river frontage. Our local authority area has more tidal Thames frontage than any other. I therefore feel that I have a special responsibility for bringing up a couple of issues that are of immediate interest to those of us who represent areas on the eastern stretch of the Thames—the estuary.

Let me say in passing that there are proposals for substantial development on Rainham marshes. I do not want to trespass—in that Rainham marshes are in the constituencies of other hon. Members—but I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that the Department is fully cognisant of the sensitive nature of that area, which incorporates sites of special scientific interest. I trust that, in respect of the current proposals—which are being discussed—and future proposals, the Department will be extra sensitive and consider calling in any proposals that are pursued. Ultimately, what happens should be determined by the Minister.

I do not oppose any developments; I am merely saying that the matter has a regional significance, on which those of us who are interested in the Thames estuary feel entitled to comment. Moreover, I believe that my borough has one of the largest number of residential planning permissions in the south-east that have yet to be activated. There are numerous opportunities for residential development along and near to the river in Thurrock alone. That should be borne in mind both in strategic planning for the region and in consideration of whether a trespass on to heritage frontage on other parts of the Thames—or, indeed, on to sites of special scientific interest—should take place. There are enormous opportunities for important residential and industrial development in my area alone.

The matter that really prompted me to speak, however, is of vital and immediate importance. Following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement about the difficulties of London and Continental—the company charged by Parliament with developing the channel tunnel rail link—a problem has arisen in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), with whom I am collaborating, about blighted properties along the river frontage.

I want the link to be constructed. It is desperately needed for United Kingdom Ltd and all the regions of England. It will cross the Thames in my constituency. Like a bootlace, it runs under the river to the east of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. It will go through the piers of the bridge in its westward approach to London, and at West Thurrock and Purfleet it will carve through a number of important small and medium businesses. That problem may be reflected elsewhere on the route, but I want to concentrate on these businesses for the moment.

The owners of the businesses were already undergoing a major crisis before the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement. They had built their businesses up; many hundreds of my constituents are employed in them. Now, there are job losses. Orders are being cancelled and orders that would otherwise have been made are not being made because London and Continental has not fulfilled the spirit—if not the letter—of its obligations to agree a strategy for the vacation of the properties. That should include fair compensation in response to claims, the giving of dates for entry and staged payments to allow parallel working at the time of relocation.

As I said, the problem existed before the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement but, as a consequence, it has been compounded. I have seen managers and owners of companies almost in tears at their plight. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot respond specifically this evening, but I appeal to him to alert the Deputy Prime Minister to the problem and to tell him that the hon. Member for Ashford and I are writing to ask him for an urgent meeting with representatives of the companies. We want the Department to deal with the matter before the Deputy Prime Minister tells the House of his intentions in regard to the rail link.

My hon. Friend will recall that, during the last Parliament, quite properly, he emphasised to me—and to other hon. Members—the importance of regeneration in connection with the millennium project in and around Greenwich. I hope that he is not offended by my reminding him of that. Let me make it clear to him that I am facing the unemployment of not a handful, but hundreds, along my stretch of the Thames. I cannot overstate the importance of immediate intervention by the Minister.

The Department has been tardy in responding to the problems of some of the firms that have been disadvantaged. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an early opportunity to talk to Mr. P. Lancaster of his Department, who appears to have been unable to reply to some of the letters sent to him by distressed companies in Kent and Thurrock.

I think that we take the precious nature of the Thames for granted—both the nature conservation and scientific aspect, especially in the estuary area, and the rich heritage that lies along its banks in London. My hon. Friends are right to take this opportunity to make it clear that they want to pursue the issue—legitimately—during the forthcoming London borough elections and that there are Members of Parliament who wish to defend the Thames.

One of the pities of this Parliament is the absence of Nigel Spearing, a distinguished former hon. Member who took a particular interest in the Thames. He did not stand at the last general election, but I know that he would have made a major contribution to this evening's debate. We miss him, and I hope that some good people may think that he should be a candidate for any new senate of Parliament, if and when it is established. In the meantime, perhaps he should be elevated to another place.

6.58 pm
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), particularly those on my predecessor, Mr. Nigel Spearing. I also support my hon. Friend's comments about the significance of the completion of the channel tunnel rail link. It is important not just to north Kent and Essex, or to London and east London, but to the rest of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members may wish to know that, tomorrow, there is to be a seminar in Birmingham on faster tracks to Europe for the regions of the UK, which supports the campaign for the successful completion of the channel tunnel rail link.

I should like to raise two points: first, river transport, which was one of the subjects of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and, secondly, riverside development adjacent to Tower bridge at Hermitage wharf. I wish to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister the role of a constituent of mine, Mr. Peter Wade, who has been associated with the river all his life. He is an ex-docker and a senior employee at Canary wharf. In one capacity or another, he has been involved in every attempt to develop a river bus service over recent years. As we all know, all those attempts have failed.

Mr. Wade is somewhat sceptical about the potential success of the new river bus services that are about to be initiated. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend offered reassurance by way of information on the analysis that has been conducted and on the potential for the new services, particularly with the arrival of the millennium dome, the increase in tourism in east London, the increased capacity and governmental support to ensure that the new services will be a success.

I understand that the only existing service, which runs between London bridge and Canary wharf, is about to close through lack of support but, obviously, we are moving into a new era with the development of tourism, the millennium dome and docklands becoming the new focus for London. With the support that the Government are committing to river services, I hope that, this time, they will not fail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked about piers in his part of west of London and beyond; perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend Minister to comment on the prospect of additional piers beyond Canary wharf on the north side of the river, particularly at the new Barrier park, which is being constructed on river banks in Newham, close to the Thames barrier.

The second issue that I wish to raise is the campaign that goes under the title Civilians Remembered. I congratulate the main organiser, Miss Marianne Fredericks, a resident of Wapping, Tower Hamlets and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on their efforts, building on those of the previous Members of Parliament for the area one of my other predecessors, Ms Mildred Gordon, and the right hon. Peter Shore. They have attempted to create a memorial to the civilian dead of the UK from the second world war.

This is not a backward-looking attempt to view history with some negativism, but an attempt to build on new European relations and European partnerships and to say that we must learn the lessons of history and build for the future. The campaign has been centred on transforming east London's last undeveloped riverside site, close to central London on Hermitage wharf, into a memorial park for future generations to remember the horrors of war and to ensure that we never arrive at that situation again. In Europe, we have, I hope, learnt those lessons and will not be faced with such an horrendous prospect again.

The site was sold to Berkeley Homes for development. Under the previous Administration, there was a public inquiry and the previous Secretary of State for the Environment made an announcement on the subject. It would be wholly unfair for Berkeley Homes to be punished as a result of any changes in Government policy, but it is strongly felt in east London that if the nation can afford to spend some £13 million on the Churchill papers, which, with the greatest respect, very few people will have the opportunity to see and enjoy, spending between £5 million and £10 million on a piece of land to create a memorial to the 60,000 UK civilians who lost their lives during the second world war—half them in London and half of those in east London—would be a fitting tribute and a lasting memorial. It would be close to tourism centres in east London, benefit future generations of Londoners and add to the capital's attractions in demonstrating the history of recent generations.

I appeal to my hon. Friend to convey to our right hon. and hon. Friends the strength of feeling in east London that time is slipping away. Berkeley Homes is a company that works under normal financial pressures. It is sensitive to the feelings of east Londoners, but it is obviously unable to make a gift of the site to the nation. With the Government demonstrating obligations to east London in attacking poverty, and with the symbolism of docklands and of the dome, £5 million does not seem a great price to pay to demonstrate that we cherish and respect our history and civilians' contribution during the second world war.

7.5 pm

Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)

Perhaps I may start with an apology to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for being absent for the first few minutes of his debate; the slightly early Adjournment caught me out when I was over the road.

I share some of Labour Members' more general views about the importance of the river and quality development on it, and the need to use the river as an essential communication link through the heart of the capital. If the proposals for the dome and the planned river improvements to get passengers to it get through, that will go a long way towards achieving that objective, and the aims and ambitions of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will, to a certain degree, be realised.

I shall comment on two of the developments that have been mentioned. The first is the Coin street development. I remind Labour Members that that was developed under a Conservative Government in the teeth of opposition from the local Labour authority. Although they are right to pray it in aid as a development that should be copied, portraying it as a great socialist achievement would be slightly misleading.

Mr. Colman

The hon. Gentleman has perhaps a slightly narrow view of history. It was the Greater London council, then Labour controlled, which felt strongly that land on the riverside should be available for the sort of mixed development, social housing and parks that I have described as a way of forward. It was the Labour GLC, which was so maligned by Conservative Members, that enabled the Coin street development to go forward.

Mr. Ottaway

I do not quarrel with that. Anyone who spends time talking to Ian Tuckett, the manager of the Coin street development, will realise that. All the GLC gave was the site, and that was in the teeth of opposition. All the development—every planning application that was made—was resisted by Labour authorities and it took Conservative Secretaries of State to push it through. I do not want to make a political point about it, other than to say I think that it is folly to portray the development as something that will help the Labour party's cause.

Battersea power station is something that the Labour party should be proud of. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was at the launch party for the project. It will create some 8,000 jobs. There will be several residential sites there. It is proceeding without the expenditure of a penny of public money and detailed planning permission will be sought in June. No doubt the Government will have something to say about it.

I have four general observations about the other projects that may have been mentioned in my absence. I have in mind the Brewhouse street development; the Shell site, Point Pleasant; Gargoyle wharf, the former Guinness site; the Montevetro building and Albion wharf. My first observation is on density. They are all high-density developments because of the nature of riverside development, the scale of the river and mixed uses on site. They are also an inevitable consequence of the Government's moves to maximise residential development on brown-field sites.

Mr. Colman

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman supports the proposed densities. They are two, three and four times the density that is set out in Wandsworth borough council's unitary development plan. How could Wandsworth council's planning committee suddenly decide to approve those plans?

Mr. Ottaway

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not listening. I said that the density is due to the nature of a riverside development and to the objective of maximising brown-field sites. The hon. Gentleman should explain why Labour did not oppose the Montevetro high-density site.

Mr. Linton

The Montevetro application was called in by the previous Secretary of State and was approved with the support of the majority party on Wandsworth council. At the public inquiry, Labour opposed the plans. We said that it would set a bad precedent for future riverside development. That is proving to be the case.

Mr. Ottaway

I am speaking on the basis of advice that was given to me in anticipation of the debate. I understand that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who was very vocal on Albion wharf, made no representations at all about the Montevetro building. I am happy to give way to him if he wishes to correct the record.

Mr. Linton

One of my council colleagues spoke at the public inquiry. At the time I was not a member of the local authority and did not have comparable standing to give evidence.

Mr. Ottaway

The record is now straight: the hon. Gentleman did not object to the development.

Design is a subjective matter. The Putney scheme was thrown out largely because everyone agreed that it was unimaginative. The Battersea schemes by Rogers and Foster give rise to competing claims. In general, the involvement of the big names must be good for the area. The quality of the schemes compares favourably with the nondescript canyon effect that is caused by the new blocks on the Fulham side around Wandsworth bridge. The so-called canyon effect is even worse in the docklands stretch.

My third point relates to social housing. It seems that Labour's enthusiasm for social housing in Wandsworth is rather muted. It is unwilling to risk upsetting neighbours to such developments who will resist new council estates on their doorsteps. The council's position is that it has no need to force developers to put social housing on named individual sites when across the borough some 40 per cent. of all new homes over the past 10 years have been affordable. Putting shackles on developers can lead to blight and to sites remaining undeveloped.

My fourth point relates to vision. It is easy to say that the sites are being developed in isolation, but each will have been the subject of detailed planning briefs that were approved only after extensive local consultation. In each case the developer was working to produce a viable scheme that meets the brief as far as possible. I have tried to make the point that there are two sides to every argument and that, by and large, the people of Wandsworth are going along with the schemes. It ill behoves the Labour party to try to make too much political mileage out of this issue in the run-up to the London borough elections, which I am sure is its objective.

7.13 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I welcome this timely opportunity to discuss some important issues on development along the Thames. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing the debate and on his prescience in securing it at a time that made it possible for debate to continue beyond the normal 30 minutes. Despite his fairly short time in the House, he obviously has a well-developed sense of the parliamentary timetable.

There were also interesting contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton), for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).

Propriety prevents me from commenting specifically on individual planning cases. Some of the proposed developments that have been mentioned are before the Secretary of State for decision or could be called in for his decision or referred to him on appeal. For that reason, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them. I shall confine my response to matters of general policy and principles.

Nevertheless, I hope that I can reassure hon. Members that each case will be considered on its merits against those principles—in particular the principles that are set down in the Secretary of State's strategic planning guidance for the Thames. It was issued in February last year and sets the planning policy framework against which boroughs are to draw up their unitary development plans and exercise their development control functions.

The fact that it became necessary to issue such guidance and the concerns that generated this debate are in many ways an encouraging sign. All along the Thames, from Brentford and Battersea down to Beckton and Erith, and further down river to Thurrock and beyond, land and buildings that have lain derelict and unused for decades are being brought back into use. London is beginning to rediscover the Thames. A once-neglected asset is now assuming a key role at the heart of the capital's regeneration. People are increasingly showing that they want to live, work and play along the banks of the river, although, not long ago, they turned their backs on it.

The renewed interest in the Thames creates potential conflicts. The river is valued as an open space running through the heart of London and as an important ecological resource. It is a place of recreation—for walking, sight-seeing and quiet enjoyment as well as for some water-based activities. It is also an important and still under-utilised transport artery for goods and people, and it is becoming an increasingly attractive setting for new homes, offices, hotels and places of entertainment. All those uses are important and all have their place, but sometimes, inevitably, they are not mutually compatible. The challenge for the planning system and for those who operate it is to reconcile the conflicts in ways that best meet Londoners' needs and aspirations.

We have heard particular concerns about the scale and quality of some new development proposals, especially for housing. I have in mind the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Battersea. I reiterate what the Government's strategic planning guidance for the Thames says on those points. For the Thames policy area, which roughly equates to the whole of the riverside within London, the guidance recognises the particular importance and sensitivity of Thameside locations. A commitment to good design is essential, and achieving a special quality of development should be the aim of all concerned.

The guidance clearly states that the appearance of new development and its relationship to its surroundings are important planning considerations. It requires developers to take careful account of the local context and pay particular attention to quality and urban design, and demonstrate that they have done so—by, among other means, the preparation of design statements. They should consult widely with local communities on both sides of the river, with amenity groups and with expert bodies such as the London Planning Advisory Committee, English Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission. One cannot, of course, be over-prescriptive, especially for a river whose character changes so quickly and so radically from stretch to stretch. That is why so much of the emphasis in the guidance is on context and on the relationship of the buildings and developments to their surroundings.

The guidance lays down some specific guidelines in certain areas. Development should address the river as a frontage and should establish and reflect a relationship with the river itself. Views and access to the river should be opened up. Developments should not be so dense that they close off any opportunity for access to the river for people living behind the immediate river area. Scale, height, density and materials should all be appropriate to the local context, and close attention should be paid to landscaping, open spaces, street furniture and lighting.

The guidance should not become a recipe for blandness or uniformity. It recognises that there is a place for challenging designs and for variations in scale and height. It acknowledges that the emphasis on context may be less appropriate in areas that are recognised as rundown and in need of improvement and where there are plans for the upgrading of the local environment. Dramatic visual statements and landmark buildings may be appropriate in exceptional cases, but should be of the highest quality.

An excellent example of the new emphasis on quality and of the potential for bringing life back to a long-neglected riverside locations is the new millennium village in my constituency of Greenwich. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced yesterday the outcome of the competition for the exciting new urban village to be built on the site, and he unveiled the ambitious and highly innovative proposals from the winning consortium, the Greenwich millennium team. Such schemes are contributing to the renaissance of the Thames, which in turn is an important part of the renaissance of London itself. Developments that make provision for new houses providing for a range of tenures, including affordable housing, new jobs and a high-quality urban environment, will increasingly attract people back to the river and bring people back to the heart of our capital.

In some cases, relatively high densities may be appropriate. Research by my Department has shown that that can be achieved through careful design without the loss of amenity, especially where there is good access to public transport. The re-use of previously developed land in that way can secure the dual benefit of urban regeneration and protection of the countryside. However—I must stress this—it is vital to protect amenity and environmental quality, not only for the sake of local communities but for London's long-term future.

Over-exploitation of the current commercial interest in development along the river would amount to killing the goose that may lay the golden egg. Sustainable development must have regard to environmental quality, to future needs and to the broad range of functions that the river serves for Londoners. It must respect the needs of all sections of the community, including those looking for affordable housing, rather than simply catering for those with high incomes who can afford and are looking for luxury pieds-a-terre.

Restoring vitality to the riverside is a key objective. Uses should contribute to making the riverside an attractive, interesting and safe environment, with public uses predominating on the lower floors. Development that neither contributes to, nor is appropriate for, a riverside location—I am thinking particularly of car parking—is to be discouraged. Public access should be protected and enhanced. The creation of pedestrian routes, including new sections of the river walk, public squares and open spaces should be a feature of all new development wherever possible. New opportunities for water-based transport and recreational facilities should also be created where appropriate, including piers, moorings and access points.

In that connection—at least three of the hon. Members who contributed to the debate mentioned this—I am pleased to note that a number of recent development proposals have incorporated new passenger piers. As hon. Members may be aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched an initiative aimed at bringing passenger transport back to the Thames by the year 2000.

Capitalising on the opportunities offered by the millennium experience at Greenwich, the aim is to establish a lasting legacy of new piers and river bus services which will realise the potential contribution the Thames can make to taking traffic off London's streets. A new company, London River Services, has been set up by London Transport to take that forward. I hope that we will be in a position to make an announcement on the detailed arrangements for that in the reasonably near future. I hope also that as many new developments as possible can be linked into the new services through the provision of new or refurbished piers.

Mr. Colman

Will my hon. Friend comment on the need to have piers and services upstream from Millbank? It seems absurd that the idea should exclude the possibility of having piers upstream from Millbank at Battersea and Fulham.

Mr. Raynsford

That is a perfectly valid point, which my hon. Friend made in his speech. I was about to come to that. He is rightly concerned about the river upstream from Westminster and Millbank.

It is our objective to achieve a river bus service that provides the greatest possible coverage, compatible with commercial viability in the long term. Clearly, there are limitations. It would be inappropriate to try to run a service that extended over too large an area and which simply could not meet the costs of maintenance. Equally, a service that is too narrowly restricted to the central areas would fail to achieve the potential for providing a river bus service that genuinely provides opportunities for people from many parts of London to use this grossly under-used artery. We have to take into account those considerations. I am conscious of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, and we will pay attention to them before reaching decisions.

The Government's strategic planning guidance cannot in itself guarantee appropriate and high quality development along the river. Much of the onus is on the local planning authorities, to which that guidance is addressed, to adopt appropriate policies and to reflect them in their unitary development plans and their everyday planning decisions. Some riparian boroughs are making good progress in adapting their policies to the new guidance and to the increasingly pressing need to balance competing pressures along the river. Others have been slower to do so. I should like to use this opportunity to urge all riparian boroughs that have not yet done so to review their planning policies with respect to the river and, where necessary, bring them into line with the strategic guidance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked about enforcement of the guidance. The Secretary of State will be mindful of that when dealing with any matters that come to him on appeal or which might be felt appropriate for call-in. That will be very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend when considering matters of more than local significance in relation to his planning powers.

Post-2000, we expect to have a new strategic authority in place with a mayor and assembly. We would expect the mayor to be taking an important initiative in relation to the overall planning framework that will be operating within the London area. I hope to say more about that when we launch the White Paper setting out the Government's proposals on that matter.

The strategic guidance, which is already in place and to which we wish to see all authorities adhere, asks authorities to prepare detailed appraisals of their stretches of the river, where appropriate in collaboration with neighbouring boroughs, and to produce design briefs for important development sites.

My hon. Friend asked why the guidance was not addressed to other key players. The point is that it is addressed to the planning authorities because it is their responsibility to translate it into unitary development plans. Every other player who is interested in development has a natural interest in understanding the planning framework. I should make it clear that planning guidance is not narrowly addressed to the local authorities, but is addressed to all those with an interest in the Thames and how it is developed.

The advent of the new Greater London authority will give added impetus to the development of a strategic approach to the Thames. The White Paper that we shall issue next month will set out a role for the new authority in strategic planning in the capital. I am certain that the further development of policies to protect and enhance one of London's most important strategic assets will be high on the list of priorities of any new mayor.

My hon. Friend mentioned sustainable development. As he acknowledged, the Government have recently issued a consultation paper on the principles of sustainable development. We aim to ensure that they underpin planning policies for the Thames and more widely. The new mayor for London will doubtless consider the principles of strategic and sustainable development as part of his remit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned the channel tunnel rail link and the properties in his constituency that may be blighted. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear in his recent statement to the House that, during the 30-day period, London and Continental Railways has the option to come forward with alternative proposals to carry forward its scheme. It would be inappropriate to make a statement during that time about any alternative option. I assure my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister is giving the most urgent attention to that very important issue. I am sure that he will read my hon. Friend's comments with care.

Mr. Mackinlay

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. I am anxious that he should reassure us that there will be a focus in the Department not just on whether London and Continental can proceed with the scheme or other options should be examined, but on the immediate need—whether LCR, the Government or another company pick up the project—for some alleviation of the crisis that is faced by the companies that have suffered because of LCR's tardy approach before it went to see the Prime Minister. They have almost been teased by London and Continental Railways. It is demonstrably unfair. Some assessment of their problems is necessary, whatever the outcome of the 30-day period.

Mr. Raynsford

Until the 30-day period is over, it would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to make a specific comment on the London and Continental scheme. However, I stress to my hon. Friend that one of the purposes of the integration of transport with the environment in the new Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is to ensure a wider policy-making framework that takes heed of the issues that he has rightly alluded to—the impact of transport schemes on the environment, on businesses and on the lives of individuals. That is almost always in our minds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town mentioned the important campaign to honour the civilians from London and other parts of Britain who lost their lives during the last war, particularly the victims of the blitz. That campaign has aroused extensive sympathy among the people of London and elsewhere in Britain. I am afraid that I cannot comment on specific proposals for the site of a memorial or on the alternative proposal that has been put forward by the developer of the site that my hon. Friend mentioned. That is currently subject to a view from the Department. It would be inappropriate for me to make any additional comment.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to the Coin street site, with which I am familiar. I gave evidence on behalf of the Coin street action group in the early stages of the campaign to ensure that the site was available for community uses rather than simply being allocated for a bland and extensive commercial development, as was originally proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly said that the Greater London council supported the fight. It made the land available for the development and provided material and moral support to enable the campaign to proceed.

Having given evidence at two public inquiries to ensure that the scheme that has emerged should proceed, I am delighted about the successful outcome. I pay tribute to the foresight of the former GLC, the energy of the local community and the many individuals who made up that group, including Ian Tackett, to whom the hon. Member for Croydon, South referred. We can all learn lessons from that example of a community proving that it can achieve its objectives against what initially appeared to be impossible odds. It is an inspiring case study from which many people will gain encouragement and learn lessons about how to ensure that development responds to the needs of communities and creates an environment of which all sections of the community can feel proud.

The hon. Gentleman made several observations about matters relating to the height and density of developments, design and the importance of social housing. The Government are mindful of those issues and want to ensure that, in our approach to planning decisions relating to the Thames—our capital city's greatest natural asset—we always bear in mind the fact that we are custodians of a long and rich heritage and that the effects of our decisions will last for many generations. It is vital that we get those decisions right. That is why the Government are committed to a planning framework that puts the emphasis on quality, design and accessibility, ensuring that we bring vitality back to the River Thames and the heart of our capital city. We live in exciting times. Those objectives can be achieved.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for giving me the opportunity, in responding to the many points that he and other hon. Members have made, to emphasise the Government's commitment to ensuring that developments along our River Thames create a city of which all of us can feel duly proud in the 21st century.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eight o'clock.