Woolwich shop and housing plan at Beresford Square to be decided next week

Plans to demolish a Woolwich town centre building housing Poundstretcher are set to be decided next week.

Greenwich Council planners are recommending approval for the site beside Beresford Square when the plan goes before councillors. It was first covered on this site back in July 2025.

A total of 156 co-living rooms are proposed above commercial space for the site, which also stretches down Beresford Street.

Few will mourn the existing building and its distinct lack of architectural value.

The replacement building looks far better that what’s currently on site and is likely to contribute far more to the town. Extra footfall will help local shops and business.

A solitary Victorian building next door will remain. The loss of Poundstretcher – which was formerly an Iceland – is however a shame. It’s a handy store to pop into.

Aside from the positives this plan does have some downsides, and once again we come to the issue of revenue from the development and where it’s to be allocated.

Revenue

When a plan comes before a local authority planning body for a decision the very first thing I tend to do is look at reports to see how much money the development is bringing in – and where it’s to be spent.

And the report this time shows no “affordable” housing on site. Not viable as ever according to the developers (have they overpaid for land?) and as such, £2,289,415 is being given for “off-site affordable housing” which is equivalent to 15.23% affordable housing.

That’s not only below the 35 per cent target in London but even lower than the downwardly revised 20 per cent new target announced by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan and the Labour government late last year.

Despite that the council report states a level equivalent to 15.23 per cent is “a significant public benefit”. New data on affordable housing in London show building rates are around all time lows.

Community Infrastructure Levy revenue won’t be high either as Greenwich’s Labour council set a specifically low rate for that tenure when revising rates last year.

Token spend

So where will Section 106 revenue to be spent? Well, there’s another £10,000 allocated for more legible London signs, presumably so they can be left to rot like others in the town.

I’m not sure Greenwich will be happy until there’s dozens of these broken signs along every single street. The one seen above is outside Woolwich Arsenal DLR station and the first thing seen when arriving in Woolwich. It was left broken for much of 2025 and into 2026.

Another one nearby on General Gordon Square was left broken for a long period and became little more than an eyesore.

Still, a box is ticked.

Healthcare

Despite a severe shortage of adequate healthcare services locally including the recent closure of a GP surgery metres from this site – the council’s pet projects at employment service GLLaB once again see more Section 106 funding allocated than health.

The nearby Clover Health Centre with 5,400 patients on the books was located in Woolwich Equitable House closed in 2023. However time and again the council’s GLLaB scheme gains more funding than healthcare from new developments and this is no exception.

Health will receive £87,800 with £88,306 towards GLLaB.

Cycle work

A further £84,854 “towards the cycleway works and the implementation of the Cycleway 4 Extension from the Woolwich roundabout into Woolwich Town Centre”.

That’s the odd, convoluted cycle route chosen from Woolwich ferry to Plumstead that heads along narrow areas of high footfall rather than a direct cycle route past numerous new developments in the area. A project that’s being done on the cheap rather than invest in improving dismal streetscapes such as along Woolwich High Street.

That’d require money you see and allocating funds from new developments. In turn GLLaB lose out. Can’t have that even if it would be a massive benefit to this end of town.

And in terms of other developments there are huge numbers in Woolwich that could improve this area.

Just north of the Poundstretcher site to be decided next week sits a major project on MacBean Street approved in November 2025.

It was a report before a meeting which decided that project which stated “GPs, acute, and mental healthcare services in Royal Greenwich are under significant pressure, with limited space and staffing capacity, and high local population growth, particularly in South East London.”

Woolwich had “1 GP for every 2,718 patients which is over capacity by 918 patients” yet GLLaB will see more money than healthcare from that development too.

Over on the opposite side of Beresford Street two student blocks are underway with a further 660 homes set to rise soon from Berkeley Homes. Six towers from that developer have also been built on the old Waterfront car park.

The old Riverside House is being extended into a hotel and student housing.

At these sites GLLaB did very well while healthcare and public realm often lagged way behind in allocation of funds.

To give one further example Woolwich Central – which commenced last month – saw £750,000 for GLLaB but just £150,000 for public realm, town centre improvements and streetscape work.

Contrasting priorities

Research for this site means reading reports week in, week out covering new development across the capital and few if any authorities acts like Greenwich Council in paying lip service to key areas such as transport, streets and town centre improvements alongside healthcare from new development revenue all while a job scheme takes such vast totals in comparison.

Most authorities do allocate funds to job and employment schemes but the ratio in Greenwich is far outside the norm. If Greenwich was similar to most London boroughs then healthcare, transport, streets, parks and town centres would see far more revenue.

It’s no fix-all but would help fund some key improvements – but as ever in Greenwich borough GLLaB must take the biggest share.

Not funding the GLLaB gravy train in Woolwich time and again would mean better designed streets, an actual cycle lane and route in the town that makes sense rather than a bodge attempted on a limited budget and perhaps a GP surgery remaining open.

Not just Woolwich

Across the borough it may also enable better links from Cycleway 4 to Greenwich peninsula rather than ignoring dire connection between areas. See the other side of the river for the stark difference and Silvertown tunnel-related mitigation funding in Newham versus Greenwich.

Greenwich invest the bare minimum so TfL don’t add a great deal in addition. Why would they if the borough council are so disinterested?

Developments in the town of Greenwich from towers near Deptford to areas on the peninsula also all follow the same pattern. GLLaB gain the bulk of revenue.

Contrast

Over the Thames in Newham the authority have invested millions in S106 and CIL funds for public realm projects in disparate schemes including North Woolwich, Silvertown and towards Canning Town (where £2.78 million Section 106 income and £5.5 million from the Community Infrastructure Levy is allocated) plus a project in Stratford – and so in turn TfL added further millions in funding on top.

Little of that happens though in Greenwich borough – and these are choices by the authority.

In the “Royal” borough it seems impossible to fund more than one street upgrade project of any substance at once and even if that’s achieved, TfL must fund it. Greenwich will wax lyrical about Cycleway 4 between Charlton and Woolwich and try to claim the credit despite scarce funds on their part, while then claiming no ability to improve links from east Greenwich to Greenwich peninsula.

Funny how some boroughs can do more than one project – and how boroughs allocate revenue from development is a key part in that.

This latest report before the Planning Board next week again shows why many areas of the so-called Royal borough are in terrible shape, as GLLaB welcome ever more funding.

Councillors are set to decide next Tuesday.

 

 

Independent sites can only continue with the support of readers.

You can support me via Paypal here

There's the Ko-fi option to buy me a coffee

Many thanks

You can also support the site by adding the Murky Depths as a trusted source in Google here

There's also a Facebook page for the site here