Plans to extend upwards a Charlton block of flats

An application has been made to add additional floors above an existing block of flats on Victoria Way in Charlton.

Recently introduced permitted rights rules now allow building owners to add additional floors if a building is at least three floors in height. The original block was built over a decade ago which also meets criteria for extending.

The rule change means those living on the top floor of many blocks have little say, and is something to consider if buying a flat in an existing block. Many previous planning requirements have been ditched.

A document submitted to Greenwich Council states:

“The building is exactly the sort of building and site that the new legislation was created for, and it meets the criteria set out under the new Town and Country (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 for the addition of two floors.”

Extra floors on top of Woolwich block

In recent months other similar plans have been made in Woolwich and east Greenwich.

Click here to view details.

Support me in running the site through Paypal here

You can also contribute via my Patreon account by clicking here

I also have a Facebook page for the site here

John 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.

One thought on “Plans to extend upwards a Charlton block of flats

  • April 4, 2021 at 2:20 pm
    Permalink

    Planning laws have gone mad. I thought it was all about the effect on the existing ‘street scene’. There is a nice terrace of Victorian / Edwardian houses opposite and to the right of the site which will be completely overshadowed by the increase in height.

    And not forgetting the existing residents. You buy a flat based on the original plan. You don’t expect the block to be doubled in size sometime in the future or having to spend x months living under a building site. This should be rejected.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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