Government lifts ban on developing land reserved for bridge project axed in 2008
Transport minister Simon Lightwood described the safeguarding direction in relation to the axed Thames Gateway Bridge scheme in east London as an 'obstacle to much-needed development'.
The bridge would have connected Newham to Greenwich, but was scrapped by then-London mayor Boris Johnson in 2008, who said the capital should focus on 'projects that deliver real benefits for Londoners'.
Safeguarding is used to stop land from being developed in a way that would conflict with future schemes.
In a written statement to Parliament, Mr Lightwood wrote that the safeguarding direction for the Thames Gateway Bridge dated back to 1940, when 'the area's transport needs were very different'.
He went on: 'Since then, London's transport priorities have evolved, and over the decades we have seen major investments in London's river crossings – most notably the Dartford Crossing, and recently, the Silvertown Tunnel.
'The safeguarding directions therefore no longer align with the direction of transport policy or the evolving needs of this part of London.
'The continued safeguarding of this land has been an obstacle to much-needed development, and I am therefore lifting these directions.
'The Government is keen to deliver new homes and unlock economic opportunity, and we are taking steps to remove unnecessary barriers to progress.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Housing asylum seekers in Essex hotel causing ‘very serious problem', court told
Housing asylum seekers at an Essex hotel is becoming a 'very serious problem' which 'could not be much worse', a council has told the High Court. Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Barristers for the council claimed on Friday that Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, stating there was an 'overwhelming case for an injunction'. Somani Hotels is defending the claim, with its barristers telling the court in London that an injunction would cause asylum seekers 'hardship' and that the move would set 'a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions'. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' He continued: 'There is no agreement between (asylum seekers) and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room. 'For them, the Bell Hotel is no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender.' Mr Coppel told the court that the Bell Hotel had not been used as a hotel since the Covid-19 pandemic, and was now 'unrecognisable as a hotel, but for an old sign'. He added that Somani Hotels had not had 'the courage of conviction to seek a certificate of lawful use', which would have 'resolved the matter in its favour'. Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel, which sparked a series of protests, and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He said that CTM should be included as it had 'booked the premises and manages and organises the movement and stay of asylum seekers', adding that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that the 'defendant has not resumed the use knowing it is in breach of planning control and hiding the use from the council'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind – as recognised by the claimant – that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Britain's rights watchdog warns against heavy-handed policing amid Gaza demos
Britain's human rights watchdog has warned against 'heavy-handed policing' which it said risks a 'chilling effect' on protest rights amid recent demonstrations about the war in Gaza. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley to remind them that the 'right to protest is a cornerstone of any healthy democracy'. The letter, from EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner, raised concerns about 'reports of police engagement with individuals participating in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation'. The commission referenced a report by the Guardian newspaper about a woman said to have been threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide'. The woman was reportedly told by police that her demonstration in Canterbury, Kent, in July expressed views supportive of Palestine Action, an organisation which has been banned by the Government. The woman said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action and that she had told police she did not support any proscribed organisations. Baroness Falkner said any interference with protest rights 'must be lawful and assessed case-by-case'. She added: 'Heavy-handed policing or blanket approaches risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences. 'This concern extends beyond those directly affected by police engagement to the broader health of our democracy, because the perception that peaceful protest may attract disproportionate police attention undermines confidence in our human rights protections.' The EHRC said Government and police authorities must 'ensure that all officers receive clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations' when it comes to protests. 'This guidance should ensure that the appropriate balance is maintained between public safety and the protection of essential human rights,' Baroness Falkner added. Palestine Action was proscribed by the UK Government in July, with the ban meaning that membership of, or support for, the group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. More than 500 people were arrested last weekend on suspicion of displaying an item in support of a proscribed group, as demonstrations took place in central London. Downing Street has described Palestine Action as 'violent' and said it has committed 'significant injury' as well as criminal damage, adding that evidence and security assessments shared in closed court supported its proscription. Palestine Action said Downing Street's accusations were 'false and defamatory' and 'disproven by the Government's own intelligence assessment'.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Stop working in the heat? If only it were that simple, Angela Rayner…
It is reported that Angela Rayner has called for the right to stop working during heatwaves. It was, to be fair, during her time in opposition, and her old tweet (from 2022) was, and is, in the public domain. So no secret socialist plot. On a newspaper story headlined 'Unions call for maximum UK workplace temperature as heatwave descends', she commented: 'We need urgent guidance for safe indoor working temperatures and the government must ensure employers allow staff to work flexibly in this heat. Where is their plan to keep people safe?' Obviously there's been a (delayed) backlash to this 'anti-growth' measure, and it is true that it is another layer of regulation. However, I have some sympathy for Rayner's view – for I have personal experience of it being too hot in the kitchen, so to speak. Many years ago, I worked at a crisp factory. I won't bore you with the details of my employment, but it should not surprise you that a crisps factory – while no steel furnace – is a very hot place to labour. There were no windows, for a start, because the sun's rays would damage the precious product at every stage of its processing, from raw potato to finished cellophane bag (partly clear in those days). The cookers were basically chip pans the size of a bungalow, and the rumbling conveyor-belts and clattering packing machines pumped out more racket and heat. We had big posters near where we clocked in and out, detailing the main provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and – my memory is playing me up, I now realise – I thought there was a maximum temperature defined by law. But we've actually never had such a thing – only a minimum (13C for manual work, 16C otherwise). Anyway, during a hot summer, the place was almost unbearable. But instead of a legal intervention, the company management and the Transport and General Workers Union and had an arrangement whereby we'd get free soft drinks – Fanta, Panda Pops, Hay's lemonade – and a more relaxed attitude to taking 'comfort breaks'. Some of us felt the Union had been too accommodating and thought we should have been paid extra for conditions that, foolishly, we compared to working on the Burma Railway. The point is that even though there wasn't some kind of temperature trigger that meant everything had to stop, when things obviously started to get silly, ways were found to get round the problem. Production was hardly affected, though I do wonder whether having some of us succumb to heatstroke was an acceptable price to pay to help stave off economic recession. Some places, as mentioned, are just going to be hot whatever the weather outside, so some arbitrary rule about stopping work at a given temperature isn't practical. But a stronger obligation on employers to ameliorate things is perfectly sensible. These days, we work in offices where air-conditioning is virtually universal, and at home, where we can go around in a state of undress (I am fully clothed as I write this, out of a misplaced sense of decency). The heat doesn't get to us so easily. However, climate change does present new challenges and requires some new thinking, drawing on the experiences of countries that have long since had to adapt to the summer torpor. Maybe it's time for a siesta for all the hard workers, as they churn out crisps and other items?
