Controversial Woolwich housing plan submitted

A contentious scheme to demolish cottages in Woolwich for a block of flats has been submitted to Greenwich Council.

The plans drew criticism during consultation due to developers seeking to demolish homes facing Sandy Hill Road. Housing on a former MOT garage to the rear and retail unit to the side has not seen much in the way of complaints.

Courtesy Google – to be demolished if approved

This part of Woolwich has many buildings of character yet many are in poor condition – along with much of the public realm. No conservation area status exists for this part of town.

Courtesy Google. Building in poor condition. No entry sign in middle of pavement making life hard for wheelchairs and buggies

Full details are:

Construction of a part two / part three storey residential building comprising 23 residential units and three mews houses (for a total of 26 residential units) (Use Class C3), 65sqm of non-residential floor space (Use Class A1), with associated soft and hard landscaping, communal and private amenity spaces, modified vehicle access, accessible parking spaces and drop off, refuse and cycle storage, and associated works (following demolition of existing buildings) | 71-79 SANDY HILL ROAD AND LAND REAR OF 3 BURRAGE PLACE, WOOLWICH, LONDON, SE18 7BQ

Click here to view the plans on the council’s planning portal.

Adverts are far from enough to cover site costs and my rent.

You can support me via Paypal here

Another option is via Patreon by clicking here

You can also buy me a beer/coffee at Ko-fi here

There's also a Facebook page for the site here

Many thanks

J Smith

I've lived in south east London most of my life growing up in Greenwich borough and working in the area for many years. The site has contributors on occasion and we cover many different topics. Living and working in the area offers an insight into what is happening locally.

13 thoughts on “Controversial Woolwich housing plan submitted

  • The google images picture is kind they’ve been boarded up and look far worse than that. We need new homes, they could be better but aren’t awful. Just get on with it!

  • Nothing controversial about this, these units are a state at the moment and need replacing.

  • They do but only as the owner has left to rot. I’m not playing that game (which they want) of showing how bad they are now as an excuse to knock down. They looked decent quite recently and could again.

    Not that I think there’s huge merit in them to be honest but have little time for owners letting buildings decline as an excuse to knock down.

    • Also, if the corner shop unit was developed plus the rear MOT site it’d be almost the same number of homes across the site if those four renovated. Seems pretty lazy to just knock down – as I said I don’t think there’s huge merit but renovated and each painted a different colour would lift up the street.

      • If there’s no architectural merit (which there isn’t), then there’s no value in restoring. I say hurry up and get on with it, it’s an eye sore. Not the time for unnecessary NIMBY style objections to this. I’d think differently if the buildings had any architectural merit, but in this case they really don’t.

  • Any new developments on this site is better than the current poor state! The whole area needs to be renovated

  • I think it would be a shame to see these old cottages demolished..Are there not grants available to owners, landlords and developers to renovate old empty properties and bring them back in to use ?

    The planned development of flats on the site of the MOT garage and retail unit.could still go a head. Some people are still looking to purchase older style properties and houses in particular as not many new developments tend to included houses. .

  • If Greenwich council can knock down beautiful historical buildings in the town centre for Tesco’s (big money) and their own office building why can’t smaller developers do the same ? All of a sudden after taking best buildings down they are listing and conserving. Madness. Corruption.

  • To be fair only the old post office was a historical building on the site of where Tesco now stands the other two buildings on the site were office blocks Crown Buildings (Old Social Security and Inland Revenue Building) and Peggy Middleton House.(Greenwich Council building). Both had no historical element to them and would have needed extensive refurbishment internally and externally,

  • That housing has zero architectural value and we should welcome responsible redevelopment of sites like these. Next, council planners need to address the disastrous 1970s traffic patterns imposed on Woolwich which are partly responsible for strangling the livelihoods of small retail. Small retail thrives on available street-level parking which in Woolwich, and much of Greenwich has been obliterated by the dreaded double yellow line. The head in sand attitude of allowing new development to proceed without sufficient parking will plague most retail centres for decades to come.

  • Saying these houses have no architectural merit misses the point somewhat. In and of themselves they are pretty unremarkable, and now an eyesore having been boarded up and fly tipping allowed to accumulate. However, they are part of a wider streetscape of simple, early Victorian cottages which has character and merit. Sandy Hill Road also being one of the more interesting and intact streets locally too. While more housing is always needed there is ample room for development in the MOT garage lot behind. Don’t kid yourself this is anything other than profiteering at the expense of an already under-loved area. They wouldn’t get away with this proposal elsewhere.

  • Pingback: Revised plan for new Woolwich homes | Murky Depths

  • Pingback: Revised plans for Woolwich homes submitted for approval | Murky Depths

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.