Thames Gateway (Hansard, 3 February 2000)

§ Mrs. Christine Butler (Castle Point)

Previously called the East Thames corridor, the Thames gateway begins in east London, and extends from Stratford and Greenwich to Tilbury in Essex and Sittingbourne and Sheerness in Kent.

Tonight, I shall argue that the Thames gateway should be further extended to include areas north of the river, just as at present it includes areas along the Kent coast to the south. That view is supported by the Essex chamber of commerce, and it is a major plank of the south-east Essex economic strategy document. Essex county council and the Essex economic partnership are strong supporters of that proposal, as is the East of England development agency, and the south-east regional planning committee, which is better known as Serplan.

The panel report following the public examination of the regional planning guidance for the south-east was a huge disappointment not only for its suggestion that the south-east should have 1 million more dwellings, but for its recommendation that the Thames gateway should not be further extended into Essex.

In December, Castle Point council informed the Government office for the east of England that the panel report did not reflect an adequate understanding of the economic problems of south-east Essex, and that further consideration should be given to those matters in a review of the Thames gateway planning guidance.

The council also expressed its concerns about the unco-ordinated approach to the transport infrastructure generally and the lack of attention to the problem of south Essex in particular. It went on to say that the panel report did not reflect a sustainable approach to the development of the region, and was likely to result in increased pressure on existing resources.

The south-east regional planning statement justified the extension of the gateway. South Essex has direct links to London and the existing gateway, with major industrial and service agencies linked to those of London. While it traditionally provides a large part of London's work force, a more sustainable strategy needs to be developed.

The north Thames area provides the nearest resort, tourism and leisure facilities outside London for the local Essex and visiting London population. It has direct transport links by road and rail to the existing gateway and London. They also link to the M25 and London Southend airport. The LTS rail route forms part of the trans-European network, and that reflects the area's appeal as the gateway to the continent. That is further supported by port facilities. The area also has pockets of deprivation that compare to those in the existing gateway south of the Thames.

Inclusion in the gateway would bring opportunities for sustainable economic development by reducing traffic demand on major routes into, and out of, London. It would reduce competition for jobs in London and the existing gateway. It could provide local people with better accessibility to local jobs, improve transport links by air, rail and water, and increase the range of economic development, including port and river facilities.

1329 That sets in context the plea that I make for Castle Point and, in particular, Canvey Island. For the life of me, I never understood why Canvey Island was ignored when the Thames gateway regeneration project first emerged. After all, it is an island strategically placed in the gateway to London, surrounded by the Thames and within the Port of London authority.

Almost 2,000 years ago, in the first century, the Romans spotted its advantages, as did the Viking invaders about 800 years later. The Vikings were defeated in 893 by King Alfred's army in the battle of Benfleet. When the Dutch settled on Canvey, they turned what had been rather a deserted place into farmland and established a small but thriving community. They drained the land, built a church and set about defending the island from the power of the sea.

Successive settlers did not change the essentially rural landscape that much until the 20th century. During the industrial revolution, Canvey escaped unscathed. No Dickensian horrors of urban living can be traced on Canvey, although visitors will find a plaque on the wall of the Lobster Smack noting that this remote spot was the inspiration for scenes from "Great Expectations". Even when the railways came and a new station was built at Benfleet, visitors from London seeking the joys of Canvey would have to cross Benfleet creek by the stepping stones.

Today, Canvey Island is a very different place. The strong sea defences established after the 1953 floods and the added security that they brought began to draw a much greater interest in the place from developers. Housebuilding started to accelerate. However, those intent on making a good profit from real estate were not the only ones to have their eye on the commercial potential of Canvey Island. This interest may have come late to Canvey but, when it did, it was rapid and merciless to the growing community of islanders, and Canvey was not prepared.

Canvey again was seen to occupy a strategic location on the Thames. It was recognised as a good place to store oil, a good place for an oil refinery and an ideal location to import all sorts of high-bulk commodities, from coal to crushed rock, to feed the rapacious jaws of London and its hinterland. The competing interests between a rapidly rising population and new industrial development was never properly resolved. There was no comprehensive plan to care for Canvey and Canvey suffered.

How could a small island be expected to cope with all those competing pressures? Well, it could not. Thank goodness Essex county council stepped in during the early 1990s to back islanders against the plans of Peter de Savory to build a massive 4,500 more houses on the last remaining expanse of ancient grazing land on the western part of Canvey.

My involvement with the island began at the time of the public inquiry into the proposal and, despite all the lobbying that was going on at the time by various politicians, the Secretary of State made the right decision and refused the application. However, Canvey's future was still uncertain. Development, taking no account of the needs of the population or a long-term, sustainable future for Canvey, still remains a threat.

Very soon, the planning committee will have to consider an application for the storage and auction of accident-damaged cars on a 30-acre site at the bottom of 1330 Haven road. That is a big area. Many of the cars will become scrap. The application comes from HBC, which trades from Charfleets industrial estate. Should the project go ahead, the result could be an expansion of a land use that is prejudicial to the best interests of the island. Canvey does not need more scrap cars on this scale. The scheme will offer virtually no employment. Instead, it will worsen traffic conditions, in particular making the lives of the people living in and around Haven road a misery. It will create an enormous ugly scar on the flat landscape of Canvey. Who would want to be near that?

Canvey needs to attract the kind of things that its people need and want, such as good, clean jobs, better amenity and improved road access. I firmly believe that Canvey is not big enough to accommodate dirty, untidy industry and almost 40,000 people. We need to implement a new 21st century vision for Canvey, putting the blight of the last half of the 20th century in the history books.

Part of this speech, which outlines my apprehension for the future of Canvey, was printed in one of our local newspapers recently, and it seems to have touched a raw nerve on the part of one Terry Holding, principal director of HBC Group. He responded in a disgraceful and shameful manner.

Yesterday, my office received several telephone calls from concerned constituents who had been the unfortunate recipients of a malicious and defamatory letter about their Member of Parliament, written by that man. He is the same person who was rejected at the ballot box when he stood as a Conservative candidate in the local elections less than a year ago. I cannot allow myself to be intimidated by such an approach, and nor could any Member of Parliament. I will continue to represent the interests of Castle Point and my constituents.

With reference to Mr. Holding's allegations, and to set the record straight, I have never said that I had secured a company to build and run a marina at Holehaven on Canvey, but I have pushed the idea that a marina could be the key to unlocking the problems that we are experiencing in attracting the right kind of investment on development land around Safeway.

Properly and sympathetically designed, that could help to regenerate the land on which the former Occidental oil refinery once stood. It could attract projects for environmental regeneration, protected open space, conservation and amenity, promoting the attractiveness of the area. Plans for a high-quality business park would therefore be far more likely to go ahead.

It is of paramount importance that a better image—as well as reality—should be created for Canvey. For the land south of Northwick road, that will require a great deal of hard work, commitment and imagination. We must be brave enough to challenge old expectations and welcome new thinking. We must believe that, in the end, our aspirations can be realised. We can overcome the legacy of past carelessness, but we need help.

Castle Point is one of the riparian authorities included in the new Thames Estuary partnership. The partnership is a neutral body set up to promote integrated policies for the whole of the Thames estuary. It is looking at matters such as improving air quality, enhancing bio-diversity, sustainable commercial use, managing fisheries, flood defences, cultural resources, landscape character, and waste and water management. It aims to act as a catalyst to co-ordinate sustainable activities through London to the lower reaches of the Thames.

1331 I have just read the partnership's strategy document, "Today's Estuary Tomorrow" and I applaud the way in which it has been drawn up. It gives a significant lead to the way in which we should be thinking about the Thames estuary. It would be an anomaly if the Thames gateway planning guidance did not extend to all the Thames estuary authorities, including the north side of the Thames. And it would be a great shame if, to steal a phrase, Canvey Island were left out and forgotten.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to reassure her of the Government's desire to encourage new economic development and investment in Canvey Island and the whole of south-east Essex, and to reiterate our commitment to regional planning.

I am aware that, in recent years, south-east Essex may not have prospered to the same extent as some other parts of the south-east region. The area has much to recommend it, as my hon. Friend made clear. It is rich in history and has areas of countryside that are important for nature conservation, and some prestigious new shopping and leisure developments.

However, like my hon. Friend, I am conscious that there are still pockets of previously used land, especially on the Thames estuary, that suffer from dereliction and contamination and where improvements to the environment are a priority. There is a need to attract new jobs to the area, and to create opportunities for local people to learn new skills and make more rewarding use of their existing skills. We also want to reduce the number of people who have to leave the area every day to work elsewhere. I know that such daily commuting adds to the congestion that is a common occurrence, especially for those trying to get in and out of Canvey Island.

Regeneration of the area in accordance with the principles of sustainability to which the Government are committed must be a clear objective, and we will do all that we can to encourage that process. Regeneration can best be achieved through partnership and co-operation between local authorities, local people and local businesses. My hon. Friend talked about a local partnership.

The policies and proposals in the Castle Point local plan and the emerging Essex and Southend replacement structure plan, which have been subject to full public consultation and debate, set out the strategy for future development in the area. It is right that decisions about the scale and location of new development, whether intended to provide houses or jobs, should be made by local people. However, there is also a strong regional dimension, which my hon. Friend recognises.

Local authority development plans are part of a framework, which must continue to be set by regional planning guidance, so that what happens in south-east Essex is not divorced from the spatial strategy for the wider region. It is the role of regional planning guidance to consider whether there are, regionally or sub-regionally, suitable areas or broad locations for major housing, business, retail and leisure uses.

At regional level, regional development agencies can play an important role in encouraging and attracting economic investment to areas such as south-east Essex, 1332 where that is urgently needed, and in supporting regeneration. The RDAs for the eastern and south-eastern regions have published their strategies for improving the region's economic performance and enhancing its competitiveness. They will need to be reflected in the final RPGs for those regions.

I do not need to remind the House of the changes we have made to the preparation of regional planning guidance. From being top-down statements of generality under the previous Administration, we intend that they should from now on embody an agreed spatial strategy for each region. The strategy will be agreed by the interests in the region. Those groups will integrate spatial planning with economic and transport planning and incorporate a more sustainable approach, bearing in mind the needs of local communities such as those that my hon. Friend described, and those who live, work and take their leisure in the area.

As my hon. Friend knows, RPG is subject to a public examination. Preparation of RPG for the south-east and the East Anglia is now at an advanced stage.

As the House knows, Serplan's draft RPG for the south-east has been subject to public consultation and a public examination. It is now necessary, following the public examination, for the Secretary of State to consider the panel's report and all the representations that have been made on the draft RPG. We want sustainable development in the south-east to be the basis for continued economic growth. We cannot carry on building in the dispersed pattern encouraged by the previous Government. However, as has been illuminated in the wider debates, including recent debates in the House, since Serplan published the draft RPG there are clearly some issues that need to be carefully addressed before we go forward to the final RPG.

We hope to be able to publish proposed changes to the draft RPG shortly, and my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say more at this time about those changes. However, they will be subject to full public consultation.

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the Thames gateway to be extended beyond its present boundaries to include Canvey Island, and I understand her desire for that to be given the green light. There is no doubt that the whole of the Thames gateway, from London to Essex and north Kent, offers huge potential. We have a range of sites, acres of development land and a real commitment from central and local government. The Government are committed to co-ordinating the delivery of policies at a level never seen before and recognising the importance of an approach that combines environmental, economic and social objectives. We are working with partners, especially local authorities and regional development agencies, to bring together the support available and needed to make sure that the Thames gateway is developed in a way that maximises the benefits for everyone. As the economies in the Thames gateway prosper, we expect them to bring beneficial spin-offs to neighbouring areas, including those in Essex.

The proposed extension of the Thames gateway boundary to include not only Canvey Island but the whole of Castle Point plus Southend, part of Basildon and the area of Thurrock fronting the river that is not currently within the gateway is strongly advocated by Essex county council and the district authorities concerned. As my hon. Friend said, it has been raised by Serplan as part of the 1333 review of RPG for the south-east. Serplan's draft RPG emphasises that the Thames gateway remains a key regional priority and states that its designation should be extended to include Castle Point, Southend and part of Basildon. The draft RPG also identifies the extended Thames gateway, embracing south-east Essex, as a priority area for economic regeneration—a specific priority area.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Crow panel report—the report on the public examination of Serplan's report—did not consider an alteration of the Thames gateway boundary to be necessary, so there is a conflict between it and Serplan's recommendations. I know that that is one of her concerns. As I said in relation to the draft RPG as a whole, I cannot therefore comment on the merits of the proposed boundary extension at this time—I know that she understands this—because that would 1334 pre-empt the formal consultation process and the Secretary of State's consideration of the matter, which he is actively undertaking at present. However, I can say to her that the Government are under no obligation to follow the Crow report blindly. We are taking account of the panel's recommendation in the light of all the material factors and making an assessment of how the regeneration of the Thames gateway and those areas adjacent to it can best be achieved. We have before us the different views from Serplan and the district councils on the one hand and the panel on the other.

My hon. Friend has made a strong case and I have heard her very clearly. I shall ensure that her views are fully considered. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to provide that assurance and to make those points to the House.