DOCSLIB.ORG

Will It Ever Be Time for TEA? (Thames Estuary Airport)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Gateway Associates Will it ever be time for TEA? (Thames Estuary Airport) Will it ever be time for TEA? A survey of key influencers and decision makers from all sides of the debate on proposals to build a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary January 2013 January 2013 Will it ever be time for TEA? This report represents the first independent look at what private, public, local, national and international stakeholders think about the proposals for building a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary. It has been conducted independently of Government, the aviation industry and construction industries. It was not commissioned by supporters or opponents although individuals from both sides of the debate have responded. No one was paid to respond to this survey. © Gateway Associates 2013 Contributors Contents Paul Clark Section Page Paul set up Gateway Associates in 2010 to ensure the knowledge, Contributors 1 influence and networks he had built up over his 13 years in Government Office could be put to use by organisations with Executive Summary 6 political interests. During his time in Parliamentary office he held a number of notable posts, which saw him conducting behind-the- scenes negotiations for major policy changes and regeneration Survey question responses 8 projects. Significantly, Paul held the post of Transport Minister from 2009–10, with specific responsibility for aviation, shipping, ports, maritime safety and road safety. He also spent two years Recommendations 50 as HMG Treasury Whip. Acknowledgements 48 Glossary of acronyms, terms and titles 58 Katrina Krishnan Doyle Further reading references 62 Katrina has advised central government departments and major international organisations for nearly fifteen years. During her time as acting Head of Thames Gateway Marketing and Communications she devised the cross government and regional engagement strategy, which was later cited by the Office of Government Commerce as an example of best practice in government communications. Katrina also runs her own professional associate network through her company, Tarakin Ltd, which advised HS2 Ltd in 2009 on how it should introduce a proactive cross-government communications programme. Rob Sibley Rob has worked on the development of London’s main airports, Disclaimer including terminals, runways, infrastructure and supporting rail links for more than 25 years. Most recently he was Head Gateway Associates takes no responsibility for the validity of the statistics and opinions given by of Strategic Planning and Policy at Gatwick Airport. He has respondents to this survey. Minor spelling and grammatical changes have been made to some of the also advised the European Investment Bank and spent time quotes where it was deemed necessary and extracts have been taken from responses that were too in Hong Kong, the Asia-Pacific region and in Europe exploring lengthy to feature in full. For some of the later questions in the survey, when respondents referred opportunities for the investment in and the operation of foreign back to previous answers given in previous questions, the contributors made a judgement as to airports. Rob is passionate about understanding local community which question the response should be listed under. This was done to avoid duplication and ensure concerns, developing mitigation proposals and balancing these that as many of the responses given were included within the report. with the economic benefits of new transport infrastructure. 2 Executive Summary In addition, given the amount of time and investment that has gone into what is essentially a privately funded aviation industry, a notable number of respondents are also keen to know how existing airports and local aviation communities will be financially compensated if a Thames Estuary Airport were to be introduced. The UK Coalition Government has to act quickly if it wishes to prevent the country’s aviation A review of the country’s aviation capacity needs was also called for, with some believing that industry and UK Plc from being grounded by competitor markets in Europe. demand estimates are out of date and should be revisited prior to a decision being made. As such, a transparent decision making criteria and evidence management process would be welcomed. A primary concern of the influential opinion leaders interviewed for thisGateway Associates Many feel that this kind of framework would give them the reassurance that their submissions are clean question survey was that a strategy for London Heathrow might be considered separately being processed responsibly. from the decisions about a central aviation hub strategy. Many feel that if Heathrow is not included in the Davies Commission’s analysis then work will need to be re-done in future to Having captured the views of some of the most influential people in the UK on this subject, rectify the omission, by which time the UK will have lost its aviation advantage to newer and Gateway Associates is able to present the landscape of opinion within this report. It also sets out larger hub airports in Europe. six specific recommendations to politicians and officials in Government detailing the steps that need to be taken to ensure a decision can be reached quickly and that money and time are not In fact, the current plan to deliver the Davies Commission’s report after the 2015 general election wasted as a result of delays. is thought by some to be timed for political rather than economic or social advantage. As such, key stakeholders from public, private and community organisations, supporters and opponents The recommendations are listed below and explained in detail in the second part of the report: alike, believe the deadline for reaching a decision should be brought forward significantly and well in advance of the next general election. Do not ignore Heathrow Get to the decision sooner Procrastination will not only have a detrimental effect on Heathrow and UK Plc’s ability to compete in international markets. There will also be a negative impact on communities in the Align policies across Whitehall Thames Estuary and those around London and regional UK airports while everyone is left waiting Find your customer in advance on tenterhooks for a decision to be made. Publish the decision making criteria Many of respondents stress the importance of investment and regeneration in the Thames Be upfront about funding and compensation Gateway area, which is lacking strategic direction. Whether it is an airport or a new kind of In total, 67 key influencers were interviewed and their names and positions are listed in the Disneyland, the area to the east of London needs a regenerative point of focus. However, the Acknowledgements section. associated property blight, environmental issues and climate change implications arising from a Thames Estuary Airport are considered non-sensical for those who fear that Boris Island-style We are grateful to all those who completed the survey and spoke to us throughout the process. proposal may have wings. In fact, most do not see an estuary airport as being compatible with existing economic, transport or environmental policies at all. In addition, many also fear the Government’s economic focus Paul Clark, Katrina Krishnan Doyle & Rob Sibley will mean that the environment and climate change will be side-lined or ignored completely Gateway Associates Ltd when it comes to making the eventual decision. Of these respondents, most find comfort in EU Habitat Legislation that has prevented previous schemes from being approved. However, they also know that if the political will for a Thames Estuary Airport is strong enough and those in power believe that the economic gains outweigh the losses, then efforts may be made to bypass European laws. This in turn would put many other protected sites across the UK in danger. The Department for Transport’s reluctance to engage with other Government Departments on aviation, or other policies, is thought to be one of the obstacles faced by those trying to have a holistic debate. There will be housing, employment and environmental implications, regardless of whether or not a Thames Estuary Airport comes into being. Many suggest input from across Whitehall should be an essential part of the decision making process. 4 The Survey Questions Q1. Does the UK need to increase its airport capacity in the Greater South East of England (GSE)? Q2. Why do you think previous Thames Estuary Airport proposals have not been accepted? Q3. Approximately how far from a Thames Estuary Airport would residents and business be impacted? Q4. What do you consider to be the advantages of building a Thames Estuary Airport? Q5. What do you consider to be the disadvantages of building a Thames Estuary Airport? Q6. How long will it take to realise the full impact of a new Thames Estuary Airport? Q7. What risks need to be managed if a hub airport is built in the Thames Estuary? Q8. Which groups will benefit most from the introduction of a Thames Estuary Airport? Survey Questions and Q9. Which groups will suffer most from the introduction of a Thames Estuary Airport? Q10. Does a Thames Estuary Airport fit within the Government’s wider Responses transport strategy? Q11. How would a new Thames Estuary Airport affect other airports in the Greater South East? Q12. Does a Thames Estuary Airport complement the Government’s wider economic strategy? Q13. Will a Thames Estuary Airport serve organisations relocating to the Midlands and North of England? Q14. Does a Thames Estuary Airport complement the Government’s environmental ambitions? Q15. Will the UK’s flood defences be affected by the introduction of a Thames Estuary Airport? Q16. Does this proposal adequately mitigate against loss of valuable green space? Q17. Does a Thames Estuary Airport complement local and regional regeneration strategies? Q18. Can the Greater South East’s infrastructure absorb the increase in demand a new airport will create? Q19.
Recommended publications
  • Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the Evidence on Socio- Economic Impacts a Report for the Airports Commission

    Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the Evidence on Socio- Economic Impacts a Report for the Airports Commission

    www.pwc.co.uk Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the evidence on socio- economic impacts A report for the Airports Commission Airports Commission June 2014 Final report www.pwc.co.uk Important notice This final document has been prepared for the Airports Commission in accordance with the terms of the Provision of Consultancy for Commercial, Financial and Economic Option Appraisal and Analysis (DfT) framework and the Contract Reference RM 2750 (650) dated 12th February 2014 and solely for the purpose and on the terms agreed with the Airports Commission. We accept no liability (including for negligence) to anyone else in connection with this document. This document contains information obtained or derived from a variety of third party sources as indicated within the document. PwC has not sought to establish the reliability of those sources or verified the information so provided. Should any person other than the Airports Commission obtain access to and read this document, such persons accepts and agrees to the following terms: 1. The reader of this document understands that the work performed by PwC was performed in accordance with instructions provided by our client, the Airports Commission, and was performed exclusively for their benefit and use. The document may therefore not include all matters relevant to the reader. 2. The reader agrees that PwC accepts no liability (including for negligence) to them in connection with this document. Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the evidence on socio-economic impacts Contents Executive summary 2 1. Introduction 6 2. Rationale for airport closure and commercial considerations 8 3.
  • Would a New Hub Airport Be Commercially Viable?

    Would a New Hub Airport Be Commercially Viable?

    Would a new hub airport be commercially viable? Prepared for the Transport Committee January 25th 2013 Oxera i Draft for Comment: Strictly Confidential Oxera Consulting Ltd is registered in England No. 2589629 and in Belgium No. 0883.432.547. Registered offices at Park Central, 40/41 Park End Street, Oxford, OX1 1JD, UK, and Stephanie Square Centre, Avenue Louise 65, Box 11, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material and the integrity of the analysis presented herein, the Company accepts no liability for any actions taken on the basis of its contents. Oxera Consulting Ltd is not licensed in the conduct of investment business as defined in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Anyone considering a specific investment should consult their own broker or other investment adviser. The Company accepts no liability for any specific investment decision, which must be at the investor’s own risk. © Oxera, 2013. All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism or review, no part may be used or reproduced without permission. Executive summary The Transport Committee is conducting an inquiry into the UK’s aviation strategy.1 Commissioned by the Committee and prepared by Oxera, this report assesses the conditions under which a new hub airport is, or is not, likely to be commercially viable. The assessment does not evaluate a specific proposal for a new hub; rather, it includes a range of scenarios covering various airport designs, demand forecasts, cost estimates and assumptions about the level of airport charges.
  • A13 Riverside Tunnel Road to Regeneration the Tunnel Is Essential to East London and Thames Gateway’S Economic Success the A13 Riverside Tunnel Road to Regeneration

    A13 Riverside Tunnel Road to Regeneration the Tunnel Is Essential to East London and Thames Gateway’S Economic Success the A13 Riverside Tunnel Road to Regeneration

    The A13 Riverside Tunnel Road to Regeneration The tunnel is essential to East London and Thames Gateway’s economic success The A13 Riverside Tunnel Road to Regeneration Thank you for taking the trouble to find out more about the proposed A13 Riverside Tunnel. The tunnelling of a 1.3km stretch of the A13 will not only improve traffic flow along this key route, mitigating the two notorious bottlenecks at the Lodge Avenue and Renwick Road junctions, but will also transform a severely blighted area. As well as creating a new neighbourhood of over 5,000 homes called Castle Green, the tunnel will act as a catalyst for the building of another 28,300 homes in London Riverside, while creating over 1,200 jobs and unlocking significant business and commercial growth in the surrounding area. The tunnel is essential to east London and the Thames Gateway’s economic success and will stimulate growth along its route as well as easing congestion. It also signifies a new way of working in this country adapted from successful models from other European cities. A large proportion of the scheme could be self-financing, with the majority of the funding being generated by the tunnel itself, through the land value uplift and sale of the homes, the community infrastructure levy and new homes bonus. If the government also supports our proposal for stamp duty devolution in Castle Green, then this would mean further significant funding for the scheme could be secured. Cllr Darren Rodwell Cllr Roger Ramsey Leader of Barking and Dagenham Council Leader of Havering Council Road to Regeneration 03 About the A13 The A13 is one of the busiest arterial routes into the capital, connecting the county of Essex with central London.
  • A Description of London's Economy Aaron Girardi and Joel Marsden March 2017

    A Description of London's Economy Aaron Girardi and Joel Marsden March 2017

    Working Paper 85 A description of London's economy Aaron Girardi and Joel Marsden March 2017 A description of London's economy Working Paper 85 copyright Greater London Authority March 2017 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queens Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Tel 020 7983 4922 Minicom 020 7983 4000 ISBN 978-1-84781-648-1 Cover photograph © London & Partners For more information about this publication, please contact: GLA Economics Tel 020 7983 4922 Email [email protected] GLA Economics provides expert advice and analysis on London’s economy and the economic issues facing the capital. Data and analysis from GLA Economics form a basis for the policy and investment decisions facing the Mayor of London and the GLA group. GLA Economics uses a wide range of information and data sourced from third party suppliers within its analysis and reports. GLA Economics cannot be held responsible for the accuracy or timeliness of this information and data. The GLA will not be liable for any losses suffered or liabilities incurred by a party as a result of that party relying in any way on the information contained in this report. A description of London's economy Working Paper 85 Contents Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 2 The structure of London’s local economies .........................................................................
  • Structures for Development: Getting Them Right

    Structures for Development: Getting Them Right

    1 Please do not quote until published, Feb 2008 Edwards, M (2008) 'Structures for development in Thames Gateway: getting them right' in London's Turning: the prospect of Thames Gateway Eds. Phil Cohen and Mike Rustin. London, Ashgate. Details at https://www.ashgate.com/shopping/title.asp?key1=&key2=&orig=results&isbn=0%207546%207063%205 Chapter sixteen Structures for development: getting them right Michael Edwards, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL The Thames Gateway is an enormous undertaking. In many respects it resembles some of the earlier major projects of British town planning like the Milton Keynes generation of new towns or the London's Docklands development. Like them, it may come to be regarded by some as a great achievement of public policy and by others as a great disaster. The fact that positive and negative views can be taken of the same project does not (or does not merely) reflect alternative subjective perspectives: it stems from the fact that there are real conflicts in the society and thus different criteria for judging success. The Thames Gateway project poses daunting choices for those with the power to decide on the future development of South East England. Government and the Mayor of London both agree that much of the wider South East's growth should be concentrated in the Thames estuary (DCMS 2006; Mayor of London 2004). They share the intention that London will expand to the East, not to the West, and that the rationality of capitalist growth is the unquestionable way forward. This chapter explores aspects of this supposed rationality, arguing that the aspirations of 'sustainability' and 'community' cannot be achieved in the neo-liberal framework which is on offer.
  • Competition, Cooperation, Co-Opetition. a Conceptualization of the ‘Network Brand’

    Competition, Cooperation, Co-Opetition. a Conceptualization of the ‘Network Brand’

    Competition, Cooperation, Co-opetition. A conceptualization of the ‘Network Brand’ Cecilia Pasquinelli Istituto di Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Abstract - Place branding relies on the assumption of inter-territorial competition which seems to be the overall approach to place management. Competition involves not only cities but also provinces, nations, states, villages and supra-national regions. However, there is room for sustaining that competition is not an exhaustive key for understanding regional development and, consequently, for interpreting place marketing and branding. Within the general frame of competition, regions and local areas may seek inter- territorial cooperation in order to enrich their offer and enhance their competitiveness. In this regard, a gap in place branding and marketing literature is identified and this paper contributes to filling it, by proposing a conceptualization of the “network brand”. Assuming cooperation/co-opetition as a way to face inter-territorial competition, this research is in charge of answering to the following research questions. Firstly, to what extent network and network brand building is a pragmatic process i.e. inspired by market principles, rather than being a political process i.e. highly related to power game emerging within and among the involved territories? Secondly, to what extent the network brand is a “post-modern” brand? A secondary research was carried out by reviewing 12 inter-territorial networking experiences in Europe and US. Concerning the first research question, evidence suggests that, beyond a surface of pragmatism, there might be a political process leading to the emergence of a network brand. Moreover, there is a chance that in some cases a pragmatic approach to networking tends to turn into a political process by means of institutional spillovers, turning the network into a political arena.
  • Growth Areas.Qxd

    Growth Areas.Qxd

    WOULD YOU LIVE HERE? MAKING THE GROWTH AREAS COMMUNITIES OF CHOICE JIM BENNETT WITH DAVID HETHERINGTON, MAX NATHAN AND CHRIS URWIN i ippr The Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) is the UK’s leading progressive think tank and was established in 1988. Its role is to bridge the political divide between the social democratic and liberal traditions, the intellectual divide between academia and the policy making establishment and the cultural divide between government and civil society. It is first and foremost a research institute, aiming to provide innovative and credible policy solutions. Its work, the questions its research poses and the methods it uses are driven by the belief that the journey to a good society is one that places social justice, democratic participation and economic and environmental sustainability at its core. For further information you can contact ippr’s external affairs department on [email protected], you can view our website at www.ippr.org and you can buy our books from Central Books on 0845 458 9910 or email [email protected]. Our trustees Chris Powell (Chairman) Chai Patel (Secretary) Jeremy Hardie (Treasurer) Professor Kumar Bhattacharyya Carey Oppenheim Lord Brooke Sir Michael Perry Lord Eatwell David Pitt-Watson Lord Gavron Dave Prentis Professor Anthony Giddens Lord Puttnam Lord Hollick Sir Martin Rees Jane Humphries Ed Sweeney Roger Jowell Baroness Williams Neil Kinnock Baroness Young of Old Scone Frances O’Grady © IPPR 2006 CONTENTS About the authors iv Acknowledgements iv List of abbreviations v Executive summary vi 1 Introduction 1 2 The policy context for housing growth 3 3 The Growth Areas and housing supply 6 4 The Growth Area communities 20 5 The Growth Area economies 29 6 Delivering growth: infrastructure and structures 45 7 Conclusions and recommendations 50 Appendix: Estimating the infrastructure costs of higher 56 housing growth targets References 59 About the authors Jim Bennett is a Senior Research Fellow at ippr.
  • Thames Gateway South Essex Fundamental Review Of

    Thames Gateway South Essex Fundamental Review Of

    Thames Gateway South Essex Fundamental Review of Strategic Housing Market Assessment Review 2013 Report of Findings December 2013 Opinion Research Services | The Strand • Swansea • SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected] Opinion Research Services | Thames Gateway South Essex SHMA 2013 – Report of Findings December 2013 Contents 1. Foreword........................................................................................................ 6 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Private Rented Sector ............................................................................................................................ 6 Housing Delivery .................................................................................................................................... 6 Benefit Reform ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Population ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Older People .......................................................................................................................................... 7 London .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................
  • Moving up a Gear: New Challenges for Housing Associations

    Moving up a Gear: New Challenges for Housing Associations

    moving up a gear: new challenges for housing associations The Smith Institute The Smith Institute is an independent think tank that has been set up to look at issues which flow from the changing relationship between social values and economic imperatives. If you would like to know more about the Smith Institute please write to: new challenges for housing associations Edited by Denise Chevin The Director The Smith Institute 3rd Floor 52 Grosvenor Gardens London SW1W 0AW Telephone +44 (0)20 7823 4240 Fax +44 (0)20 7823 4823 Email [email protected] Website www.smith-institute.org.uk Registered Charity No. 1062967 2008 Designed and produced by Owen & Owen THE SMITH INSTITUTE moving up a gear: new challenges for housing associations Edited by Denise Chevin Published by the Smith Institute ISBN 1 905370 32 6 This report, like all Smith Institute monographs, represents the views of the authors and not those of the Smith Institute. © The Smith Institute 2008 THE SMITH INSTITUTE Contents Preface Wilf Stevenson, Director, Smith Institute 3 Introduction Denise Chevin, Editor of Building 5 Chapter 1: Housing policy and the role of housing associations Andy Love MP, Co-chair of the All-party Group on Homelessness & Housing Need 12 Chapter 2: New landscapes in affordable housing Peter Marsh, Deputy Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation 20 Chapter 3: Mutual respect to deliver the communities we want David Orr, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation 28 Chapter 4: From meeting need to matching housing aspirations David Cowans,
  • 2014:Layout 2 5/3/14 19:22 Page 1 Port of London Authority Handbook 2014 the Port of Tilbury London’S Link to World Trade

    2014:Layout 2 5/3/14 19:22 Page 1 Port of London Authority Handbook 2014 the Port of Tilbury London’S Link to World Trade

    PLA final cover 2014:Layout 2 5/3/14 19:22 Page 1 Port of London Authority Handbook 2014 The Port of Tilbury London’s link to world trade • Closest deepwater port to London • Serving huge South East UK market • Britain’s greenest port – a leader on environmental issues • A truly multimodal port with excellent rail and road links • Skilled workforce handling diverse commodities • Multi-million pound investments – creating jobs and growth Constantly adapting to changing demands... Please contact Port of Tilbury on: 01375 852200 | Port of Tilbury London Ltd, Leslie Ford House, Tilbury Freeport, Tilbury, Essex, RM18 7EH | www.forthports.co.uk Published in association with The Port of London Authority by Compass Publications Ltd Publisher James P Moriarty Sales Director Andy Bullen Editorial Felicity Landon Photography Andy Wallace Samuel Ashfield Ford Motor Company Nick Strugnell Gavin Parsons Rob Powell Dan Harwood Alistair Gale Book Design Pearce Marchbank Production Editor Linda Roast Cartographer Lee Ash Print Swallowtail Print The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the publisher, the Port of London Authority, nor any other organisation associated with this publication. No liability can be accepted for inaccuraciesof any description, although the publishers would be pleased to receive amendments for possible inclusion in future editions. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying or scanning, without the prior permission of the publishers. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of the publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. March 2014 ISSN 1353-7482 ©2014 Compass Publications Ltd COMPASS31st Edition PUBLICATIONS LTD.
  • Core Vision November 2009

    Core Vision November 2009

    The Thames Gateway Core Vision November 2009 Sir Terry Farrell The purpose of the Core Vision… The Core The Core The Core Vision: Vision: Vision: ● to develop a visual ● refreshes the ● supports characterisation Thames Gateway investment plans (based on the narrative Parklands Model) ● helps inform ● shapes the future policy delivery strategy ● supports project delivery ● commissioned by the HCA / CLG The key questions… • What is the Thames Gateway’s role and what is its future? • Why should Government continue to support the Thames Gateway? Wealth and quality of life is place-based “Place is actually more important to the world economy than ever before …” Richard Florida London’s wealth enables the Greater South East to compete globally Growth in London and the Greater South East is critical to the UK’s future prosperity 1 The highest return on investment for public and private sectors in the UK 2 The highest GVA per capita in the UK £30k £20k £10k East of England Rest of UK South East £0k London Table comparing GVA per capita in the UK Thames Gateway has the region’s greatest potential… The largest designated The most available land and a 1 growth area in the region 2 willingness for sustainable growth 1 Milton Keynes and South Midlands Basildon 2 London Stansted and Cambridge East London 3 Thames Gateway Kent 4 Ashford Thameside Medway ● Immediately adjacent to London ● 20% of the Greater South East’s brownfield land ● A critical part of the London economy – London’s engine ● in only 3% of the Greater South room East Region …to deliver
  • The Thames Gateway – Where Next?

    The Thames Gateway – Where Next?

    Gateway_Cover.qxd:Smith Institute 28/10/09 13:26 Page 1 the thames gateway – where next? The Smith Institute The Smith Institute, founded in the memory of the late Rt Hon John Smith, is an independent think tank that undertakes research, education and events. Our charitable purpose is educational in regard to the UK economy in its widest sense. We provide a platform for national and international discussion on a wide range of public policy issues concerning social justice, community, governance, enterprise, economy, trade, and the environment. the thames gateway – where next? the thames gateway – where If you would like to know more about the Smith Institute please write to: Edited by Sir Terry Farrell The Smith Institute 4th Floor 30-32 Southampton Street London WC2E 7RA Telephone +44 (0)20 7823 4240 Fax +44 (0)20 7836 9192 Email [email protected] Website www.smith-institute.org.uk Registered Charity No. 1062967 2009 Designed and produced by Owen & Owen Gateway_Text.qxd:Smith 29/10/09 09:19 Page 1 THE SMITH INSTITUTE the thames gateway – where next? The Thames Gateway is the largest and most significant growth and regeneration site in the UK. Although the pace of development has slowed since the credit crunch and the economic downturn hit, the Gateway remains a significant driver for sustainable growth and innovation in London and the Greater South East. Making the most of the Gateway will, moreover, continue to be a feature in the planning of the region for many years to come. The aim of this monograph is not to give a justification for the Gateway or to detail every project.