Proposed Greenwich riverside towers see revised plan

Revised plans for riverside towers on the western side of Greenwich peninsula are now online with consultation underway.

Criterion capital have altered previously approved plans for three towers and a cruise liner terminal. The terminal is now gone and two stepped towers replace three.

Previous approved plan with three towers

There’s a couple of positives with this revised plan. Firstly, total homes are 567 with “affordable” now increased to 35 per cent. Of that, two-thirds are “low cost” rent. With Viability Assessments that is likely the highest the council could realistically achieve.

What is key to now see is what “low cost” translates as. If it’s London Affordable Rent then that would be a good result given current planning rules, and see around 200 for those in dire need of secure housing. One to follow.

Massing of proposed development.

The second is that if Greenwich get a move on and adopt revised Community Infrastructure Levy rates before plans approved, the borough and council would see greater income compared to prior plans.

Towers

In terms of design and height it’s all pretty much as expected. With outline approval already given for towers buildings of similar height were always on the card when land sold onto current owners.

Proposed towers

The tallest here is 36 floors compared to 32 in 2015. We could expect that tripped back when final plans approved to the same level as 2015.

Previously approved plans made objections to a neighbouring plot at Morden Wharf due to height from local MP Matt Pennycook unlikely to gain much traction.

Morden Wharf sits next door. Enderby Wharf located to right on this image

He’d argued against tall buildings as part of the overall development – which would also provide hundreds of homes at social rent levels – yet the neighbouring plot had already seen tall buildings approved by Greenwich Council.

Morden Wharf was approved and perhaps was a test of Labour’s commitment to new housing. Local MP Matt Pennycook is the shadow minister for housing and yet opposed a development that would provide hundreds of truly affordable homes in a borough and city with a sharply increasing population and housing crises.

One in Zone 2 near an Underground station to boot.

It could be argued more truly affordable homes were required at Morden Wharf but the Viability Assessment halted that. Still, trying to limit height was never going to increase forthcoming low cost housing.

Future site of riverside towers

The plot now revised and under consultation sits closer to existing homes than Morden Wharf.

New builds nearby

Hundreds of social homes in Morden Wharf can also make a dent in the long list of homeless households in the borough – which has again reached all new highs to 1,880 in a report before Greenwich Council’s Cabinet this week. In addition the council’s waiting list is around 25,000.

That is costing everyone – tenants, councils, central government and taxpayers – vastly.

This plan is likely to gain approval due both to previous approval of tall buildings on site on site as well as Greenwich failing to meet housing targets, which ensures a presumption for approval if rejected and then appealed.

Plans can be viewed and commented upon here.

-----------------

Running a site takes much time and cost a lot of money. Adverts are far from enough to cover it and my rent.

You can support me and the running this site in a number of ways including 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.

    2 thoughts on “Proposed Greenwich riverside towers see revised plan

    • The whole peninsula is already a giant constant traffic backlog, with only a couple of bus routes available and already packed most of the time. It is insane to continue packing flats upon flats.

      Reply
    • Why no cruise terminal? No demand? Public opposition? I recall there being much discussion about use of onshore power vs running diesel to power moored vessels.

      Reply

    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.