The controversial Enderby Wharf cruise liner terminal was the subject of a parliamentary debate yesterday, as the MP for Woolwich and Greenwich slammed the developers for making “little effort” to find cleaner solutions.

Jim Fitzpatrick, Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse, secured the debate in the House of Commons and began by saying that although he supports the building of the terminal, he believes shore-side power should be explored.

Opening the debate, Mr Fitzpatrick said: “The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich who comprise the East Greenwich Residents Association and others have tried legal challenges, but so far there has been no success there, either.

“Therefore it is down to the developers, who could do the honourable thing and build a power source into their new development and still show a healthy profit, but they do not have to do that and, if that is not a requirement, why should they do that?

“Why should they do it? Because it is the right thing to do.”

Mr Fitzpatrick said the former Mayor of London Boris Johnson “reluctantly approved the scheme” because he lacked the power to challenge it.

Greenwich and Woolwich MP Matt Pennycook also contributed to the debate, arguing that the reasons the developers provided as to why shore side power was not an option were not fully investigated.

He said: “What is disappointing in the case of the Enderby Wharf terminal is that the developers have made seemingly little effort to explore the range of grid connections that might have been available through the various distribution network operators that serve the area.”

One of the reasons given was that only a small proportion of cruise ships around the world are equipped to use shore-side power.

However Mr Pennycook questioned whether the upfront costs of shore-side power would be prohibitive to the development in the long-run.

He added: “What is required in the case of Enderby Wharf is a serious examination of the feasibility and benefits of installing shore-to-ship power—not just today but in terms of the cost of avoiding the expense of retrofitting the terminal in the years ahead—and, more importantly, a genuine willingness on the part of those involved to approach the issue with an open mind.

“If, instead, the developers insist on ploughing ahead with the scheme as currently proposed, they will do so in the face of widespread hostility from the local community and continuing negative coverage before a single shovel has even been put in the ground.”

News Shopper:

Residents outside the High Court before the Enderby Whard High Court hearing.

Last month the High Court ruled against overturning the planning permission granted by Greenwich Council.

The decision followed a two-day hearing, where lawyers for the claimant – an anonymous Greenwich resident – argued that the council failed to take in the cumulative impact of potential emissions from the development.

However the judge found in favour of Greenwich Council, stating that the development will bring a boost to tourism in the borough.

During the hearing Greenwich Council argued it had carried out adequate assessment of the impact on air quality.