Plans for 590 student rooms in Greenwich deferred
A decision on constructing 590 students rooms was deferred by a Greenwich Council Planning Board meeting earlier this week.
A number of concerns had been raised by residents for blocks proposed beside Deptford creek near the Thames by developer Tribe, who previously gained permission for a student tower nearby at Ravensborne Wharf.
Tribe also propose a student development a short distance away at Sun Wharf in Deptford ensuring three in close proximity.
That last site is in Lewisham borough gets me to another point which came up during the meeting as Greenwich Council low level of Community Infrastructure Levy rates for student development ensures revenue would total £2.5 million according to representative from the developer.
Losing out
That may sound a lot but pales compared to neighbouring boroughs. As an example, if the same development was proposed a few short hundred metres north in Tower Hamlets, their student CIL rate would garner almost five times as much revenue for local services. Rather than £2.5m we’re talking almost £12.5 million income.
If we look at what Lewisham Council are proposing just to the west with revised CIL rates (see section 6.7 here), this same development a few hundred metres west would garner £5 million.
It’s a similar story with Newham’s rates. Even outlying Bromley is nearing double the rate and would see nearly £5 million income.
Despite a site beside the creek with views of the Thames, near a World Heritage site and excellent transport links providing either quick trains or DLR journeys to various parts of the capital the Greenwich CIL rate is low and frankly pathetic.
And residents continue to lose out.
Section 106
Section 106 revenue hardly compensates. Greenwich allocated a measly £40k for public realm improvements.
A Tribe representative during the meeting stated they’d offered part of a ground floor space to the NHS who decline, but that they’d offered the S106 payment they required.
Well, not quite according to a council report.
The NHS asked for £236,430 in Section 106 contributions but will see £221,260 unless there was a late alteration I didn’t see. Sure, it’s almost the same but not quite at £15k short.
A number of residents spoke alongside local councillors Majella Anning and Calum O’Byrne Mulligan with Anning mentioning low CIL rates.
Other issues raised by residents and councillors include a lack of social housing in plans, impact on views from Greenwich’s World Heritage sites nearby and inaccurate diagrams on fire engine access. Parking was also raised. TfL too had raised this given limited CPZ times in the area only operating between 12-2pm.
Eventually Cllr David Gardner proposed a site visit which was approved by other councillors on the Planning Board.
Whether it’s approved subsequently by the Planning Board or on appeal – or even rejected and revised – the issue of very low revenue for local services will remain a continual problem.
