Proceeding contribution from Andrew Mackinlay (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 20 October 2005. It occurred during Debate and Adjournment debate on Thames Gateway.
Thames Gateway
I wholly agree with that view. As I said earlier, I welcome the tone of the debate; I only wish that 600 other Members were here to listen to it. Although the House is not packed, I shall not delay it too long as I realise that other Members want to speak, but I want to make a few more points. I welcomed the transfer from Thurrock borough council to the urban development corporation of planning powers for big developments—residential units of more than 50 dwellings, commercial developments of more than 2,000 sq m and developments close to the River Thames or the green belt—but I was disappointed that the corporation had no remit for design. All too often in my area, planners have paid insufficient attention to details such as facing materials and landscaping and design. We have both an opportunity and a challenge to ensure that residential and commercial buildings are at the cutting edge of attractiveness, modern design and functionality. Although that power has not been vested in the development corporation, I hope that the Minister will pump-prime through circulars and meetings, as there is an implicit obligation for both the development corporation, Thurrock borough council and other planning authorities to be sensitive and demand of developers that such things are not forgotten in their zeal to fulfil the wider mission. Mention has been made of a Thames crossing. I do not want to trespass on the debate or disagreement that may exist in Bexley or the London borough of Greenwich. However, I am surprised that there has not been more discussion about a Thames crossing to the east of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge and the Dartford crossing, as it is so important to United Kingdom commerce. That may present difficulties to some Members, because there will always be some nimbys who will not want a new crossing. However, we must address the fact that the QEII-Dartford crossing is like a funnel, which can sometimes be blocked, not for hours but for days, at enormous cost and loss to business and commerce and to the frustration of people who are trying to get to schools or workplaces. It is madness not to address that problem.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 437 c1032
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Construction Building regulations Housing Infrastructure Standards Regional planning and development Sustainable development Regeneration Thames Gateway
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:34:54 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_268451
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_268451
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_268451