853

news, views and issues around Greenwich, Charlton, Blackheath and Woolwich, south-east London – what you won't read in Greenwich Time

See plans for new Greenwich Peninsula towers

with 10 comments

It’s funny what you find in the pub, isn’t it?

Greenwich Peninsula 'consultation''

A single sheet left in The Pilot yesterday evening, revealing plans to build to the west of the Dome, on land west of Millennium Way (the road that leads up to the Dome) and across Tunnel Avenue. Street signs already bear a “Peninsula Quays” legend, and this is why. The riverfront there is already being shored up – it’s the patch of land between Frank Dekker‘s ill-fated beach site and the Dome.

Oh yes, they look like skyscrapers. (Although it’s hard to tell just how tall they are.) And oh look, more car parking, because the area needs more traffic, doesn’t it? Nothing on the Greenwich Peninsula website (“in partnership with the Greater London Authority and the Royal Borough of Greenwich” – nothing on either of those, either) so it looks like you’ll just have to pay them a visit in one of those squat buildings between Peninsula Square and the O2’s minicab rank from 4-7pm on Friday 1 March and 10am-2pm on Saturday 2 March.

Written by Darryl

22 February, 2013 at 7:30 am

Posted in local stuff

Tagged with ,

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. In a bit of a rush, so I could be reading it incorrectly, but it looks like a variation request has gone to the Planning Board and will be decided before this consultation.

    The board will meet on February 28th to decide a change to the affordable housing mix on the peninsula. It looks like the Peninsula Quays site will have no affordable housing and the overall mix will go down from 38% to 25%.

    http://committees.greenwich.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=2978

    Is it just me, or does there appear to be a drive across the borough to talk up the housing problem and then downscale the affordable housing commitment at the whim of developers to bolster their profits?

    Stewart

    22 February, 2013 at 12:54 pm

  2. Stewart – you’ve reminded me about plans to increase the social housing mix on the other side of the peninsula (by the City Peninsula tower) which have upset people living there. Haven’t got around to looking at that yet.

    Slowly, carefully-planned ideas could be coming apart.

    Darryl

    22 February, 2013 at 1:25 pm

  3. I think it’s all connected. From my brief read it did look like they were increasing on that side but the overall figure is still way down. Berkeley have achieved the same on the Arsenal site.

    So much for learning from the urban planning and social segregation mistakes of the past.

    Stewart

    22 February, 2013 at 1:32 pm

  4. A similar thing happened last year, on a smaller scale, with the Grove Market development in Eltham. Nobody seems to be on site yet though.

    http://committees.greenwich.gov.uk/documents/g2974/Decisions%2025th-Oct-2012%2018.30%20Planning%20Board.pdf?T=2

    Paul Webbewood

    22 February, 2013 at 1:45 pm

  5. Of course downgrading the affordable element is counterproductive and costs more, but its no surprise. Don’t think however that because there’s little social housing there wont be social tenants. There could well be, but they will be renting from buy to let investors instead of a housing association and the housing allowance costs will therefore be higher, putting further pressure on public finances.

    fromthemurkydepths

    22 February, 2013 at 3:04 pm

  6. The social housing mix is indeed unsettling for us who live in the GMV and was put across to the developers at the last Residents’ Meeting held at the Greenwich Yacht Club. What appears to be happening is that there are no affordable housing element proposed at the “higher end” quality development by the O2, with all of it “dumped” by the City Peninsula area of land. The % of affordable housing in the GMV and City Peninsula blocks are around the lower end (20%), while these new developments by the City Peninsula are putting in numbers towards the higher end (55%+). The lack of family units (3 bed and above) was also a concern with most, if not all being put aside for social housing. Some of the residents here should be present at the Planning Board meeting later this week.

    Simon Ong

    25 February, 2013 at 4:25 pm

  7. So dump all the affordable elements down south, well away from all the transport so they can make the North private and get a healthy £50m grant from the Mayors office. Why the government didn’t redevelopment this site themselves rather than have private developers drip feed a pitiful number of new units and in the case of LendLease, build homes and sell on at a whacking profit.

    http://www.planningresource.co.uk/go/news/article/1173138/greenwich-peninsula-affordable-homes-reduction-agreed/

    QA

    3 March, 2013 at 7:44 pm

  8. Hi all, thanks Simon for raising this. As you say, the council at last weeks Planning board introduced a “Variation to the Section 106 agreement” that applies to a total of 11 plots over the peninsula – resulting in no affordable housing at the peninsula Quays northern end and what I would argue are unsustainabily high levels of affordable housing of around 56% on (high rise high density) plots in the south – thereby dividing the peninsula between a socially cleansed north, and over concentrations of affordable housing in the south resulting in a polarised society of the haves and the have nots. The variation not only polarises the provision of affordable housing, but also reduces the allocation overall from the Master Plan down from 38% to just 21%. Not to mention the pultry proportion of family sized homes (around just 5% of private units being 3 or more beds).

    The big story is that the Variation which affects 11 development plots across the peninsula, and clearly would means a substantial departure to (and is in clear conflict with) the councils (and the Mayors) current planning policies on mixed and balanced communities and family sized homes, was not consulted on in any way. It was merely presented on the agenda. Consultees were given the opportunity to respond to the three recent plots, however were not given any opportunity to respond to the variation which clearly has a much bigger impact on the shape of the peninsula. If you care about the peninsula being an inclusive new community where people of all incomes can live together sustainably and where people can bring up families (rather than just studios, 1 and 2 bed flats) please write to your councillor and / the Mayor and object.

    Shane Brownie

    3 March, 2013 at 10:22 pm

  9. [...] long do we have left before another prolonged diversion? The stretch that’s just reopened is already earmarked for development (more of which to come on that [...]

  10. [...] cleared and decontaminated and roads rebuilt. No planning application’s gone in yet – a small exhibition was held a month ago, showing tower blocks and plans for up to 1,638 homes (see a business plan) – but this is an [...]


Hello! Please join the discussion below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 501 other followers