Labour candidates claimed the decision to approve a so-called toxic port was the “wrong call” as the party-splitting debate rumbled on last night.
Candidates of Peninsula Ward were grilled on how they would overturn the controversial decision to build a cruise liner port at Enderby Wharf.
A revitalised campaign group, No Toxic Port For London, has pressured the council to sink the terminal if ships are not required to plug in to on-shore power.
The group say one cruise liner docked there powering itself would emit the same pollution as more than 680 lorries.
A previous campaign by residents on both sides of the Thames went all the way to the high court, where the scheme was cleared with a judge saying it would boost tourism for Greenwich.
Dan Garrun, one of the Green candidates, said last night (April 24): “The planning app has gone through, it’s done. I spoke against it, the Labour councillors spoke against it – give them respect for that.
“But there is a way to overturn it, it’s called revocation and it does exist. It’s a method that has been used before – north of Newcastle it was used to overturn a shopping centre.
“It can be done, but it requires bringing everybody back to the table.
“It involves councils sticking their necks out and, really, we’re the only ones talking about it. It should be done, it needs to be done, and we need to bring people back to the table to discuss on-shore power.”
Revocation is rarely used, and is the process of cancelling planning permissions after it has been granted.
Labour councillors appear split on the port, with some now saying they are against the plans – originally agreed in 2012, before a bigger scheme was given the greenlight in 2015.
Labour councillor Chris Lloyd has consistently opposed the plans, and said: “It was the wrong call. We have pushed relentlessly within the council, at all levels, through full council, through scrutiny and through one on one meetings with the leadership to get this wrong decision changed.
“One thing I will say about revocation, is that it is a tool and it is a possibility – when it was used it nearly bankrupted the authority, that was a real threat.
“I don’t want to throw away all our options before we get to that stage, if the developer thinks we will revoke it and we will be liable for all the money spent then they won’t engage with us.
“We want to work within the council leadership with all the other powers at our disposal to get it changed- but personally, I don’t think it will happen anyway.”
Election candidates were grilled at a debate on April 24
The port has been put up for sale by Morgan Stanley and housing developer Barratt has reportedly withdrawn from the proposals, which included 477 homes, restaurants and shops.
6,000 people have now signed the petition organised by the campaign, which has been backed by many of the parties standing in the election next week.
Tory candidate Reece Smith congratulated the campaign for pressuring the council, but said councillors should have done that already.
He went on to say: “It’s all well and good saying they’re opposed to the toxic cruise ship terminal, but yet it was a Labour administration who pushed it through.
“A strong opposition will challenge every decision around this cruise ship terminal. We need to bring everyone back around the table to discuss this, we need to stop this. If we are elected we will stop this terminal being made – at least make sure it has on shore power.”
The Labour candidates said the decision was made by the planning committee, not the administration.
Campaigners have called for the plans to be sunk
The Liberal Democrat candidate Richard Chamberlain said as the bankers funding the project have pulled out, the plans will stall, and when developers reapply it should be made conditional for on-shore power.
Greenwich Council said previously: “We know that a number of local people feel passionately about Enderby Wharf.
“We have always sought to listen to their opinions at all times and will ensure that the conditions and obligations put in place by the planning board are honoured by the developer.”
A brief timeline of the "Toxic Port"
2014: Revised application approved with changes to the residential aspect of the plans
May 2016: Sadiq Khan chimes in to debates calling for “resolution” over pollution fears
September 2016: MPs debate the port in Parliament
August 2017: EU commission investigates the Wharf over fears it could have a “Venice-like” impact.
March 2018: No To Toxic Port campaign surfaces, re-starting the debate
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel