Gateway to a housing disaster

Ministers are under pressure to conduct an independent review of the troubled Thames Gateway project as the full extent of mismanagement and excessive bureaucracy blighting the scheme is exposed.

The development, the biggest of its kind in Europe, was thrown into turmoil with the ousting of chief executive Judith Armitt, who lost the confidence of senior figures at the Department for Communities and Local Government, including Housing Minister Yvette Cooper. But Opposition MPs claim she was a scapegoat for a project which is threatening to become a "Dome-like" embarrassment for Gordon Brown.

The regeneration scheme promises up to 225,000 jobs and 160,000 homes in a 40-mile corridor along the estuary from Docklands to Southend and Lewisham to the Isle of Sheppey. An Evening Standard analysis has found:

The Government oversees 65 taxpayer-funded agencies and organisat ions, often with overlapping responsibilities.

It has no idea how many homes were built in the project's first four years.

The project has swallowed £7 billion in tax money but there has been no proper audit on how it has been spent.

Until November - six years after the project was started - there was no comprehensive plan, and the private sector is losing confidence in the Government's ability to deliver.

The publication of a delivery plan led to the fall of Ms Armitt after just a year in the post. Reportedly, Ms Cooper was so unhappy with Ms Armitt's work that she ordered the draft to be rewritten.

Others connected with the project say Ms Armitt also clashed with Peter Housden, permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, who has replaced her with Joe Montgomery, a senior civil servant in the department.

"Judith was a square peg in a round hole. It needed a communicator but even staff who directly reported to her had to book appointments two to three weeks in advance," said one insider. The department is still refusing to confirm whether Ms Armitt has left. Nor will it say how long Mr Montgomery will remain in place or whether a new management structure for the project is being planned.

Mr Montgomery inherits a deeply troubled project. It has taken four years to build 30,000 of the 160,000 homes, raising concerns that the Government may not reach its target by 2016.

Even the 30,000 figure is an educated guess as the Government kept no records. The bureaucracy is the stuff of legend. A complicated structure requires scores of different organisations to work together in "management layers" and "funding streams".

A total of £10 million a year is spent funding nine regeneration partnerships and corporations. These in turn offer funding to various organisations. In one instance the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was given £4 million for a new visitor centre at Rainham Marshes via four funding bodies: the East of England Development Agency; the South Essex GreenGrid; London Thames Gateway Development Corporation; and Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation.

One executive said managing the project was like "herding cats", adding: "The Government has oversold what it can do. It is treating it like a new town where it owns the land. But the development is being done almost entirely by the private sector... so you cannot guarantee delivery dates. You cannot have delivery until you have control over land supply."

The solution, many people say, is to create a single development agency along the lines of the London Docklands Development Corporation which oversaw Canary Wharf's transformation.

Alistair Burt, Tory shadow minister for local government and regeneration, called for an independent review. "The Government probably wants to draw a line under the problem of Thames Gateway by firing Judith Armitt but it has provoked a new crisis," he said.

"The Thames Gateway community will be profoundly uneasy that the chief executive has been made a scapegoat and if this is all that happens substantial problems will remain," he said. Mr Burt said there needed to be a strategic body people could have confidence in. Labour MPAustin Mitchell, a member of the public accounts committee, said there were "too many fingers in the pie".

A spokeswoman for the Department of Communities said: "The Thames Gateway Delivery Plan, published a fortnight ago, sets out a detailed, fully costed vision. The Gateway has already delivered results, including the opening of two international stations on the High Speed Rail Link, agreement on Crossrail, major progress on the Olympic Developments, and the new deepwater port at London Gateway.

"The Thames Gateway is 40 miles from end to end with dozens of towns and communities, and it's vital they are involved in its regeneration. That's why we have always said councils and local agencies should be a major part of the project, rather than having a single topdown centralising structure."

How many partners does it take to create a fiasco? Er...66

Rather than having a single body overseeing the Gateway development, the Government decided on a "network" of partnerships.

At the bottom of the management structure are all the local authorities in the Thames Gateway area.

These are represented by seven "local regeneration partnerships" and two urban development corporations - the London Development Corporation and the Thurrock Development Corporation.

The seven partnerships have limited powers and are there to co-ordinate building projects.

The two development corporations are legal entities and can enter into contracts and receive government funding.

In the next layer there are three subregional partnerships, which are the link between central government, the regional partnerships and the local authorities.

At the top of the management structure is the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership, chaired by Housing Minister Yvette Cooper.

This draws the whole lot together along with 25 government departments and agencies.

Lead department

Department for Local Government and Communities

Local regeneration partnerships

Medway Renaissance Partnership, Swale Forward, Renaissance Southend, Basildon Renaissance Partnership, Kent Thameside Delivery Board, Woolwich Regeneration Agency, Invest Bexley, London Urban Development Corporation, Thurrock Urban Development Corporation

Regional development agencies

London Development Agency, South East of England Development Agency, East of England Development Agency

Regional planning bodies

South East of England Regional Assembly, East of England Regional Assembly, Mayor of London/Greater London Authority

Sub-regional partnerships

Thames Gateway Kent Partnership, Thames Gateway London Partnership, Thames Gateway South East Partnership

Other organisations involved

Medway council, Barking & Dagenham council, Hackney council, Havering council, Newham council, Tower Hamlets council, Lewisham council, Greenwich council, Bexley council, Redbridge council, Rochford council, Waltham Forest council, Dartford council, Gravesham council, Basildon council, Castle Point council, Southend-on-Sea council, Thurrock council, Swale council, Kent county council, Essex county council, Government Office for London, Government Office for East of England, Government Office for the South East, Olympic Delivery Authority, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Natural England, Environment Agency, Department for Education and Skills, Higher Education Funding Council, Learning and Skills Council, Department for Health, Department for Trade and Industry, UK Trade and Investment, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, English Heritage, Arts Council England, Sport England, Heritage Lottery Fund, Museums and Libraries and Archives Council, Home Office, Department for Transport, Highways Agency, Network Rail, Housing Corporation, English Partnerships, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

And...

Numerous companies from the private sector, primary care trusts, schools, housing associations, colleges and the police.