Greenwich tower plans at Ravensbourne Wharf revised

The developer behind a tower proposal in Greenwich has revised plans to squeeze in more flats.

Since initial submission in February developers are seeking to add two more floors with no overall increase in height. This is achieved by reducing floor to ceiling height and reorganising internal layout. The number of flats increases to 129 from 111.

Site location

I first covered plans back in February of this year. The building would be located beside Deptford Creek directly next to the Euromix concrete and aggregates facility at Brewery Wharf.

Building with yellow banner would be site of tower. Brewery Wharf on left

This is a 100 per cent build-to-rent scheme from The Edition Group. If Union Wharf just over the Creek is anything to go by they won’t be cheap to rent.

Even after adding flats and reducing floor heights only 20% of flats would be “affordable” rent under the revised submission at Ravensbourne.

The scheme would open up Deptford Creek for public access – though a Creekside path at an adjacent development has been shut to the public ever since completing around three years ago.

Creekside opened up

That development is also now having flammable cladding removed.

Deptford Creek path has been closed to the public since completion


In terms of the design at Ravensbourne I’m pretty keen. It’s not another box and looks good both inside and out. Whether it can pass planning given its extremely close proximity to the concrete wharf and low affordable housing levels is another question.

Click here to view revised plans.


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.

10 thoughts on “Greenwich tower plans at Ravensbourne Wharf revised

  • You are for this? Why? Socially the creek is being cleansed into a high density future housing nightmare. The folk that end up renting it or on inflated help to buy get screwed with shit air quality and services. There is no way a tower that big should be put there. We need housing but the shameless land grabbing has to stop. We all get left with the reduced quality of life as a result. Give it 20 years at it will have degraded massively.

  • i’m with Andrew on this one. When is this over-building bonanza ever gonna stop?! We are becoming battery hens – couped in to smaller and smaller spaces. The greedy developers even want to squeeze more flats in, not for the benefit of the people living there but for their own greed and profit. So, ceiling heights will be reduced so that more battery hens can be crammed in. Also, the astronomical ‘service charges’ that all these new builds now come with are beyond most people’s means and are an ongoing cost that the tenants can never get away from, often at least a couple of hundred £ a month! Landlords can increase these costs year on year too. For such a fundamental human need [shelter, why does the government continue to allow developers to make themselves enormously rich off the backs of ordinary people, people who then become shackled for the rest of their lives with high mortgages and ongoing ‘service charges’, in order to put a roof over their (our!) heads. The blight on the landscape with taller and more densely packed housing does no one else any favours either. Infrastructure and local services become more and more stretched. I used to take a train from Maze Hill into town some 20 years ago for work – AND get a seat. Now you can hardly get on the train anywhere along that line (or on the Lewisham line) during the morning rush hour, let alone get a seat. I just wonder when enough is ever going to be enough with the develpment frenzy that’s been going on over the past 10 years? Also, we keep hearing in the media that 100,000 new properties need to be built every year in order to ‘solve’ the housing crisis, yet all we see around us is more and more and more blocks of flats going up which are unaffordable for ‘ordinary’ people. So my questions are: 1) WHERE are these ‘other’ 100,000 properties for ordinary folk going to be built becasue all the land is beng used for these ‘luxury’ flats and 2) WHO are the people who can afford the luxury flats that are being built and where did they come from if there is still a housing crises because I am pretty sure they are not the people who are the ones in the housing crises. OK, rant over.

    • The target is 300,000 which isn’t that ambitious. The UK built 350k+ under Churchill and MacMillan in the early 1950s for comparison with shortages still ongoing from WW2 – and built more for most of the next three decades under all parties. You probably got a train seat as it was government policy to depopulate London after WW2 and it lost a quarter of residents it had in 1939 with many moving to surrounding counties – which themselves became ever busier. London was also clogged with traffic as more drove in from surrounding counties. The 1939 population total was only reached again in 2015. I can agree on the need for them to be truly affordable – but people do need good quality homes. And converting family homes into HMOs and poor quality new builds is not the answer.

    • I agree with some of this sentiment, but what’s the solution? If a one bed flat is already over-priced and unaffordable to most, new build townhouses will be unaffordable to all.

  • Agree with both of the above posts.
    I’ve continually mentioned the point that the high density of high rise buildings will be a negative to the surrounding areas and infrastructure.
    We need more spacious family homes, not tiny overpriced apartments aimed at ‘professionals’.
    The quility of life will be no existent for families living in these buildings- if they can even afford to live there!
    The unitended consequences of thethese developments have not been thought of! Remimber, the Ferrier estate was considered the future of housing when it was first built!!!!!!

    • More flats means less family homes converted for HMOs. Plenty of people in their 20s and 30s are happy in town centre flats (including me) until having a family and requiring more space. Even then, in much of Europe families have no problem living in spacious flats providing amenities are there. See just about any town in Danish, Spanish, German cities. I’ve stayed in some. They work wonderfully well in many cases. Places like the Ferrier never had the support, amenities or managament needed.

      • But these flats sound like they’re going to be anything but spacious – actually reducing ceiling height to get more flats in!

        And that building is too tall for the location, it look out of place and just degrades the area.

        All very well building flats for people who don’t mind them but they should suit the area, be of a decent size and the authorities should ensure the infrastructure can cope.

  • Was the Creekside path supposed to be opened up after that development? Is it something we should be chasing up?

    • To be fair it was ambiguous about opening and conflicting info was out there. Its all ready and complete now. I believe local Cllrs and council staff were down there recently hoping to open it.

  • Pingback: Greenwich tower approved: adjacent neglected estate ignored | 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.