Planning #2

I hand you over to Bob for some quite disturbing news on Lovells Wharf:

The developers of the site called Greenwich Wharves are proposing some substantial changes to
the development:

  • increasing the total square metres from 94,825 by 12,695 sq.m – anincrease of 30%
  •  increase the number of new homes from 667 to 911 – about 37% increase
  • change in the height of the buildings up to 13 storeys on the riverfront
  • reduction in the commercial and office accommodation – no details provided about what or how much is reduced

The commercial and office accommodation were an important factor in the consented plans. Before consent there had been an outrageous original proposal for very tall buildings. The developers now appear to be trying to claw back what they were originally refused.

There are consultation meetings on Tuesday 11th December from 5pm to 9pm, and on Wednesday 12th December from 2pm to 9pm, at Rothbury Hall on Azof Street. Locals have had brochures posted through their doors, but I don’t know how widely they’ve been distributed within the rest of Greenwich.

The changes that have been outlined increase the living density by 30% with concomitant increases in the height of the buildings, but reduce the infrastructure that was in the current proposal. They seem to be trying to stack as many people on top of each other as they can, without providing even the infrastructure that was supposed to support a smaller population.

The brochure gives no reasons at all for the proposed changes. One is therefore left to speculate that they are going to try and squeeze as much money out of the development as they can, while cynically avoiding their responsibilities to provide services and a quality environment.

This change therefore provides no benefits whatsoever to people who live here at the moment. If they stopped building today, it would be no loss to locals (apart from the small stretch of riverside that is still closed). Nothing in this proposed change gives us any reason to support it, and plenty of reasons to oppose it. So I hope people will go to the meetings and
make their feelings known to the developers and to the council who will be considering this application.

Actually, I have had a communication from what I believe to be the developers, London and Regional Properties, who now call Lovells ‘Greenwich Wharf’ (totally annihilating any sense of history) confirming the dates of the consultation:

Stream Arts, Rothbury Hall, Mauritius Road London SE10
on
Tuesday 11 December 17.00 – 21.00
and
Wednesday 12 December 14.00 – 21.00


14 Comments to “Planning #2”

  1. daveh48 says:

    I’ve not received the brochure and I live in Pelton Road.

    Not good news.

  2. Mary says:

    I have been telling people about this where I can – and Rob – Greenwich Wharf is actually the original name of the Wharf. Lovells were quite late comers – moving on to the wharf well into the 20th century, When it was built in the 1840s it was Greenwich Wharf – read my articles on it, written, incidentally, when Shaw Lovell were still on site

  3. Mary says:

    for the history of the wharf and the name http://greenwichindustrialhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/lovells-wharf-greenwich-riverside.html
    - the article was published in the 1990s originally in Bygone Kent.

    anyway – go to the exhibition – look at the plans – respond to the planning application and – PLEASE – copy your three local councillors in Dick Quibell, Miranda Williams, and Mary Mills

  4. Nelson's Left Eye says:

    That will be a glorious view of the towers of Docklands blocked by a looming block of flats for a large number of people. It’s already a large lump of a structure dominating the waterfront.

    It’s not as if the design is anything stunning or timeless either.

  5. Martin Staniforth says:

    What about all the public services needed for all these extra new residents : buses, trains, Tube, traffic management, car parking, schools, police, doctors’ surgeries – and all the rest ?
    When you look at how overpopulated and underserviced we already are – and then add in all the new Lovell’s people, the new development at the bottom of Vanbrugh Hill and all those new flats EVERYWHERE in our area – are we cramming people like lab-rats into a space that never gets bigger ? With what outcomes ?
    What are the Council and Consultant MP Raynsford up to ?
    We must squash all this – ASAP. Go to the meetings !!

  6. Jamie T says:

    Is there anywhere I can view the proposed designs online?

    There seems to be a complete lack of design consciousness in the developments going up in the borough. Such a waste.

    Greenwich Council, if you’re listening: more regard to design quality please!

  7. rjp says:

    Minor pedantry – the increase in sq.m is about 14%, not 30%.

    (94825+12695)/94825 => 1.134

  8. Chelsea_girl says:

    I live one road away from this development. I thought something was up when I got notification that the new plans were being displayed. They are in the Stream Arts, Rothbury Hall, Mauritius Road. Tues 11 Dec 5pm-9pm and Wed 12 Dec 2pm-9pm.
    I have notified the Greenwich Society about all this as they were very involved in getting the original plans for a tower block knocked back several years ago. I suspect the developers are hoping we’ve all forgotten about it and are trying it on again.
    I’ve also called Greenwich Council’s planning office. I believe the plans haven’t been formally submitted yet. When they are, we need to contact them to get the application number and lodge a formal objection.
    I am also going to ask the developers when the Thames path is going to reopen!

  9. Fatty Fatty BumBum says:

    @ Chelsea_Girl

    Good stuff. I dont live local but hate to hear the way these developers try to ram through profit driven schemes and ignore local residents by, in this case shutting the Thames path.

    Incidentally the closer of the Thames path for such a long time is the kind of thing BBC London news would cover, you should give them a ring and see if they will feature it. Nothing makes developers/big business act quicker than the wrath of negative publicity. Plus it may drum up more pressure to reopen it.

  10. Chelsea_girl says:

    Good idea Mr Fatty! I’ll contact BBC after Christmas. I’ve always thought it was ‘interesting’ the way the developers filtered the Thames path past their marketing suite! The notices regarding the diversion are pretty poor. I often have to guide confused tourists down my road.

    Now I could be wrong – but I seem to recall that there was nothing in the developers’ approved plans regarding when they legally have to reopen the path by. I also believe that if a certain number of years pass without it reopening then they can simply not bother.
    I’m not suggesting that this is going to happen but it’s in all our interests to ensure that we keep this issue in the public eye.

  11. JOF says:

    Chelsea Girl
    More suggestions on the Thames Path from a non-Greenwich resident I’m afraid.
    Transport For London theoretically promotes walking in London, see http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/walking/default.aspx on its website. This page also suggests London’s Top Seven Walks, one of which is the Thames Path. Lobbying the Mayor/TfL, or referring to their walking strategy when talking to BBC London or others, may be helpful in a wider campaign.

  12. Chelsea_girl says:

    I attended the developer’s public consultation meeting on Wednesday and was told that they intend to open the entire Thames path next month!
    A cynical person might think that the timing of this is a good P.R. stunt to try and get local people on side but I couldn’t possibly comment.

  13. Math_Frog says:

    Hello all, I live on Banning street. I have lived here for the past five years. Five years ago this area was next to a waste land. I dont know what the developers are planning, whether they are increasing to 13 storeys or not. At the minute it’s clear the second building is 8 storeys’ tall. For the design, yes, it could be better but it’s not the ugliest thing either and frankly a little better than the wasteland it was 5 years ago. I think my only concern is: are they going to cancel the original plan of restaurants, gym, swimming pool, hotel. If someone can provide with a definite answer that’d be great (maybe from the meeting @chelsea_girl?). If I look at the new business nearby I can see art galleries, pilates, restaurant, “gastro pubs”. I dont want to sound too optimistic, but it’s better than it used to be in my opinion? What are your opinions?

  14. Chelsea_girl says:

    @ Math_Frog,
    The developers told me that the hotel isn’t going to happen. There are now many more hotels in the area since the original plans were agreed in 2006. Some of the retail plots are going/changing. I suspect the developers think renting out shop/office space is going to be quite challenging in the current economic climate.

    The developers haven’t actually submitted their new plans yet. The public consultation was the first stage. If you want to contact them for more details then George Cochrane: georgecochrane342@btinternet.com is your man. (He won’t mind me posting his details as they are on the leaflet that was sent out.)

    For what it’s worth, I’m not against the Lovell’s Wharf development per se; it’s more the scale and speed of what’s happening in our little corner of East Greenwich. We currently have this, the new ‘Heart of East Greenwich’ plus the Blackwall Lane development. Not to mention the GMV development.

    We must be looking at something close to an extra 10,000 people moving in over the next few years.
    Where are these people going to go to school? How are they going to get to work? You can barely get on a train at Maze Hill during rush hour as it is. And what about dentists/ doctors? (Don’t get me started on the Lewisham hospital ‘proposals’.)

    I guess these issues are really more for Greenwich council to address as they are the ones that agree to these new developments. The developers just stick up the buildings then move on.