New Capital Quay

So, after stalling last year, work has restarted on New Capital Quay, on the Greenwich side of the creek, and Jeremy and I have been wondering where that leaves us.

Of course the new consortium has got it easy in comparison to the old one – the hard bit of the work’s been done – the tedious wrangling of the planning stage has passed and the foundations, especially next to the convergence of two rivers can’t have been easy but it’s done now.  But apart from the eleven blocks of 636 new apartments, what is actually going to go there now?

Fifty seven percent of the space will, apparently, be publicly accessible so at least it’s not all going to be gated and they’re still talking about a supermarket and sundry bars and ‘community and visitor attractions’ (not sure what they mean by ‘visitor attractions’ in a largely residential development…) but there’s no mention whatsoever of the originally projected footbridge linking the two sides of the Thames Path (at the moment ramblers face a nasty hiatus between that weird statue of Peter the Great and the Five Foot Walk).

Now, maybe I’ve got this wrong, but I’m sure this was a Section 106 obligation. Did the agreement end when the last company walked away or are they still bound to do this?  Are we still going to get our bridge and the company’s just failed to mention it in their list of lovely facilities for residents on their website? Perhaps they’re just hoping the council will forget about it.  Or did the last company give the cash to the council, so they could build it? If so are we still going to get it or has it been quietly forgotten in the series of cuts?

I seriously have no idea. But I would very much like to know.  A bridge linking those parts of the Thames Path wouldn’t just benefit walkers, it would be good for business for the supermarket and bars, would link Millennium Quay with Greenwich and, let’s face it, would just be cool.

the attachments to this post:

new capital quay jeremy
new capital quay jeremy

10 Comments to “New Capital Quay”

  1. IanVisits says:

    The bridge is still there on the photo at the top of the front page of their website.

    Although, it is missing from the aerial view used on “The Opportunity” page, but that looks like artistic license of the sorts than property developers are famous for.

  2. You’re right, Ian – how did I not see that? I guess my eye was drawn to the buildings. Well, I feel a bit better, but I’d really like to know that it IS happening.

  3. Dazza says:

    Call me daft, but how are boats (like the one in the picture, Tall masted jobbies let alone the more usual sand carrying ones) going to get under said bridge and down the creek? Or am I missing the location of the bridge completely?

  4. Darryl says:

    If it’s still on the same planning permission as before – and I imagine it will be since the hiatus has only been a couple of years – then a new Greenwich-Deptford bridge should be on its way.

    Always worth double-checking these things, though…. *coughLovellsWharfcough*

  5. Dazz – if memory serves it’s one of those groovy swing-bridges that moves out of the way for ships.

    I do hope that it’s still happening. And yes, Darryl Lovells Wharf. I’m still busily writing to people (and getting the odd reply, though usually from people who have no power asking me to let them know if I hear anything…)

  6. Darryl says:

    Right – I think this is it:

    Planning application 05/1368/F

    Together with this drawing, where you can see a little bridge over the creek between “Greenwich Reach East” and Millennium Quay in Deptford

    From the look of it (haven’t drilled down into the documents) I guess it’ll be a swing bridge – Creek Bridge still lifts (haven’t you got some pics of that, Phant?) and so does the
    Ha’penny Hatch

  7. Tee hee, Darryl – are you seriously suggesting I might be able to find one of my own photos again? Sometimes the only way I can find my stuff is by googling it. If only I could find a way to put the pics in some sort of order – but that would involve naming them all and…oh my brain hurts…

    I’m pretty sure it was a swing bridge, from memory.

  8. Of Interest To Some Lawyers says:

    See Para 4.6.7 here –

    pedestrian bridge was going to be the subject of a separate application – can’t tell if it was?

  9. Joe D says:

    This is the development with the old brick wall that until very recently had the very old painted advert/business sign on it, isn’t it? Do we know if it was the council or the developers who thought it was a good idea to roughly paint over that with slate grey graffiti paint?

  10. I truly don’t think the council would have done that. If they clean grafitti off, they have special cleaning agents. The don’t just paint randomly over stuff.