Revised tower plans for Morden Wharf’s 1,500 homes in Greenwich submitted
Plans to construct new homes in a number of towers in Greenwich have been revised with a new application submitted.
Morden Wharf previously saw approval for 1,500 homes from developer U+I. They’ve since sold the site to Galliard and Singapore company City Developments Limited.
The application is a mess quite frankly with documents laid out and named in a terrible manner. It took an age trying to decipher but here we go.
Firstly, modest changes to building heights are proposed. The tallest block is now two storeys shorter whilst two shoulder blocks gain a floor each.
Designs are also changed different.
The application claims previous designs referenced the no-demolished gas holder so who needs those designs anymore, and in their place are revised blocks.
Do you like brown?
If so you’re in luck.
And if that isn’t exciting enough for you, there’s a fair bit of “traffic grey” on the tower facades.
In fact, two shades of it!
In terms of “affordable” housing the application states: “Scheme designed at 35% with the final percentage subject to viability discussions”.
So could be anything after a good old Viability Assessment.
Internal site changes
In terms of building and site layout they’ve rearranged a proposed square within the site which will include a bus stop.
That diversion into the site will no doubt please many who will see slower journeys as buses take a slower route to North Greenwich station.
It’s likely the 188 will be diverted. TfL have already consulted on it.
That has other knock on impacts by forcing passengers including children heading to a nearby school further away from their destination and having to cross some dismal streets.
The site is accessed on foot from Tunnel Avenue which is pretty atrocious.
Serious attention needs paying to improve this area.
It doesn’t get much better if walking to reach, say, Ikea or the Odeon nearby or shops in Charlton.
The application states people will be expected to head along Tunnel Avenue then cross beneath the flyover.
Discussions
What happens now plans are in is discussions between the developer and Greenwich Council will be ongoing on how to allocate millions in Section 106 revenue. I’m not even getting into the millions of Community Infrastructure Levy revenue to any great degree.
It’s another area Greenwich have zero apparent strategy. Southwark last week talked of how they’ll spend their CIL millions. Stations, public realm, streets, public transport all set to see funds. It’s night and day away from the sluggishness with Greenwich.
If the past is a guide with Section 106 income, Greenwich council will be doing all they can to ignore allocating funds for any meaningful improvements on foot, and instead expect people to take the bus for five minutes.
Of courser buses are needed but the bus station at North Greenwich already suffers from congestion and diverting buses will inconvenience many others who will see slower journeys, so make walking links better to various nearby sites!
This is also the same council which recently allowed Knight Dragon the option not to improve the bus station once 3,000 homes were built on their Masterplan area.
But a temporary car park is allowed to stay for ten more years.
On the other side of the river Newham have allocated section 106 and CIL income to match TfL funds for street improvements. Nothing similar seen on the peninsula.
Anyway, let’s see what happens when it goes before the Planning Board. Same old, same old when it comes to funding public realm improvements to nearby shops, schools, stations and public services?
The plan shows worrying signs of past failings being repeated focusing on the nearby tube station and ignoring other areas. We also see the same again with the Thames Path as if that’s the only link to all things: “Pedestrian and cycling movement around the site is served off of the Thames Footpath.”
Well the path is important but it’s certainly not much use if walking to many nearby shops or schools. Are Greenwich planners on the ball this time at highlighting this and pushing funds towards improvements?
The application can be viewed here. Architects are Cowen and Partners. For an overview of the site’s industrial history click here.
