Regeneration
67. The Millennium Commission's choice of Greenwich
as the site of the Exhibition was based in part on the need to
regenerate an economically, environmentally and socially deprived
area of London. The potential value of the Dome as an engine of
regeneration was noted in our first examination of the project.[180]
68. Greenwich Council considered that that potential
was being fulfilled, stating: "The Dome project and the wider
redevelopment of the Greenwich Peninsula have undoubtedly had,
and will continue to have, significant positive impact on the
local communities and economy. From a local perspective this represents
major economic success."[181]
Mr David McCollum, Director of Development and Leisure Services
at Greenwich Council, told us that "unemployment rates [on
the wider waterfront] have halved over the last five years".[182]
The Council attributed "something like 7,000 jobs created
in Greenwich last year" to the Dome.[183]
The Government estimated that the Dome had helped create 13,000
jobs during its construction and operation, and estimated that
the project would help create 25,000 jobs in the Thames Gateway
over the next seven years.[184]
69. Councillor Bob Harris, Greenwich Council's Executive
Officer responsible for regeneration, said that the "transport
legacy is all for us ... the Jubilee Line and the DLR [Docklands
Light Railway] ... are already enormous success stories".[185]
However, the Council was concerned that there should be a substantial
legacy that included other sections of the infrastructure. The
Council hoped to retain, expand and integrate river services,
bus services, Millennium Transit, mainline rail services and the
DLR.[186]
Improved transport infrastructure has allowed greater access to
central London for local residents and has enabled more people
to travel to Greenwich.[187]
Councillor Harris said that transport was "absolutely fundamental"
to the continued regeneration and prosperity of the Borough.[188]
70. NMEC claimed that the Dome has had a positive
environmental impact. In addition to the reclamation of 300 acres
of contaminated land,[189]
the Dome project has been associated with the development of the
Millennium village.[190]
Both the village and the Dome used environmentally friendly design.[191]
However, Friends of the Earth was equivocal in its assessment
of the project's environmental credentials.[192]
Ms Page accepted that more could have been done at the Dome to
utilise and promote environmentally aware solutions. However,
she felt that there had been "scant time and resources"
to pursue the optimum environmental options.[193]
The project has also provided recreational facilities, such as
the riverside walk, the cycle network, new public open spaces
and the Millennium pier.[194]
71. The wider economic benefits of the Dome will
become evident over time.[195]
Greenwich Council stated that the Dome had assisted the Borough
in attracting single regeneration budget awards and inward investment.[196]
The long-term benefits for Greenwich are being evaluated by the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions through
a research project.[197]
A balanced assessment of the Dome as a public project should
give due weight to the growing signs of its success as a regeneration
project, particularly as that regeneration potential of the project
was from the outset of crucial importance in the selection of
the site and organisation of the project.
180 HC (1997-98) 340-I, paras 48-49. Back
181 Evidence,
p 71. Back
182 Q
244. Back
183 Ibid. Back
184 Evidence,
p 107. Back
185 Q
250. Back
186 Evidence,
pp 69-70. Back
187 Evidence,
p 72. Back
188 Q
250. Back
189 Evidence,
p 107. Back
190 Evidence,
p 72. Back
191 Ibid;
HC (1999-2000) 24-II, p 24. Back
192 Evidence,
p 202. Back
193 RSA
speech. Back
194 HC
(1999-2000) 24-II, p 51. Back
195 Q
248; Evidence, p 71. Back
196 Q
247. Back
197 Evidence,
p 213. Back
|
