Greenwich planners are recommending that future phases of Greenwich Millennium Village are approved at a Planning Board meeting next week.
There are two areas up for approval. I first covered plans back in December 2019. One site is commercial space in a five storey building alongside an area of open space plus 34 car parking spaces. This is at the bottom right in the image below:
The other area is residential blocks with 489 homes at Plots 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 (the bottom left in above image). A total of 226 car parking spaces are planned.
Hi Dan, Chris
As per your previous advice I attempted to reported this continued illegal parking (West Parkside, Merritt Heights) to your out of hours team.They literally just said there is nothing they can do. Is there really no way to report parking offences on a bank holiday? pic.twitter.com/aTHW1awEVt
— Mr F1Cowboyman (@f1cowboyman) December 28, 2020
TfL have raised concern “that the streets to be dominated by car parking; visibility when entering or existing the undercroft parking is restricted by car parking spaces; the cycle parking spaces do not comply with the London Cycle Design Standards and it is questioned whether the roads are appropriate for two way traffic, especially for larger vehicles such as delivery vans.”
Some concerns are addressed in responses from the developer but not all. There is already a regular problem with vehicles parking on pavements in the area. Greenwich Council themselves state in regards to the developer’s plans: “No highway objection”.
The plan includes 20% affordable housing with 26% are shared ownership and 74% “affordable rent”. It doesn’t state what level affordable rented is – whether 80 per cent market rates, lower such as London Living Rent or social rent. Approval at outline stage was 70% social rented and 30% intermediate.
The NHS responded stating: “Advised that there is insufficient capacity to
accommodate the uplift in population and that a contribution should be
allocated to address this.”
In response the document states: “The application does not result in an uplift against the masterplan development for a total of 1,746 units. The financial contributions required to make the masterplan acceptable were fully considered at the time the outline consent was granted and it is not possible to impose additional requirements at this stage.”
The total income may be approved but how the money is allocated can be altered. Given S106 in the 2012 agreement covered many areas, how it’s divided is important given it covers all these areas: “financial contributions towards bus improvements, cycle parking at North Greenwich Station, upgrades to the Riverside Walk, under five childcare provision, the Cultural Strategy, Public Art, off-site Community facilities, Social Services, increased provision of primary school places, improvements to secondary school education, health facilities, environmental monitoring, public realm and open space, GLLaB, emergency services and public safety improvements”
Some funds have been spent but not all given not all plots are complete and income yet received. There is no information on how money is to be spent in the new reports.
Documents acknowledge that road in the area are designed for high speed traffic more suited to a non-residential area despite thousands of new homes underway. It states: “To the south of the site is Bugsby’s Way, which is a highly trafficked road
leading from the roundabout that sits south of the entrance to the masterplan
from Peartree Way.”
A pedestrian crossing was installed as part of £1.7 million Ikea gave Greenwich Council via Section 106. However, other arms of the roundabout have no such crossings and high speed traffic ensures it’s a case of look then run and hope for the best with poor visibility.
Despite public realm being in the 2012 S106 agreement there is no mention of an improved crossing despite the report stating:
“Policy 6.10 of the London Plan places great emphasis on the aim to increase
walking in London. To achieve this, the policy requires decision makers take
account of the quality of the pedestrian environment, taking account of
Transport for London’s Pedestrian Design Guide.”
Because this plan follows outline approval almost nine years ago, there is no Community Infrastructure Levy payment. Instead, Section 106 will cover all contributions to the local authority.
On a related note it’s another planning meeting where money from developers given to the authority is not only barely covered within individual applications, but also not given an agenda item itself for public debate covering S106 income at other sites. This is normal in some other authorities. Click here to view Southwark’s January 2021 planning meeting with this as agenda item 7:
Greenwich Council never do likewise.
- Help me and the site by becoming a supporter at Patreon or make a one-off donation at Paypal
- There is now a From The Murky Depths Facebook page. Click here to follow and see stories on your Facebook feed.