Woolwich Waterfront to be demolished and sold confirm Greenwich Council
Prime land beside the Thames which is currently home to Woolwich Waterfront leisure centre is to be sold by Greenwich Council.
The centre is set to be closed by the council when a replacement centre named Woolwich Waves opens.
Demolition was always certain but a big question remained over whether Greenwich would retain land and develop themselves either under their Greenwich Builds programme – including substantial amounts of truly affordable housing – or via their off-shoot developer Meridian Homestart which could offer market sales or rents to cross-subsidise lower cost units either on site or elsewhere with all profit reinvested for the public good.
Housing need and cost pressures
With the council seeing around 2,000 households in temporary accommodation at vast cost to the authority resulting in public service cuts, this decision ensures a measure that makes financial sense long term is not being pursued.
Cuts will continue.
One such example of those ongoing cuts is a recent botched street cleaning reorganisation. Cuts to adventure playgrounds are also on the cards.
I’m afraid to say if anyone still expected a Labour council under a Labour government to utilise public land for truly low cost housing en masse or prudent financial planning gaining long term financial savings, think again.
That’s despite a Labour council, Labour Mayor and Labour government.
And this is in Housing Minister Matt Penny cooks own constituency.
Same failings
This latest short term move is very much in line with the selling of numerous areas of public land in the town including their old council office at nearby Riverside House, offices at Peggy Middleton, the Waterfront car park, Callis Yard depot and estates in Woolwich nearer Charlton.
Beyond council estates and offices other public land sold off include the former Woolwich Poly school (currently operating as a car park without any apparent permission) and in future Woolwich barracks.
All while this is going on housing problems spiral.
So let’s keep doing the same.
What’s that definition of madness again?
Penny wise, pound foolish?
Selling the site will of course bring a short term financial boost but long term it costs more not to use existing public land for low cost housing when authorities have to provide it. One huge issue with new homes is the cost of land. Councils don’t have that with public land.
No matter. Sell it anyway.
And so ever more public money heads to private interests in the form of landlords, B&Bs and hotels.
Someone quids in
This substantial riverside site will be expected to gain a healthy profit for whoever purchases the site. They’ll be a sprinkling of social homes on site or off site but don’t expect too much.
It’s possible social housing will also be very low given recent moves to reduce requirements across London as revealed in recent weeks to aid “viability” for private developers.
Despite years of the same failing selling off land in Woolwich we see Greenwich officers reject either a joint venture with a developer or the council building on the site itself.
That raises the point of what even is the point of a council having an off shoot developer such as Meridian Homestart if it doesn’t use it to generate financial benefits on such a site to assist both the council’s finances long term and a need for housing?
And as an aside, what’s the point of GLLaB swallowing so much income when it cannot train builders and tradesmen and women to lower costs on public new builds?
Given it’s prime riverside land market sales will be healthy. An element of market rate build-to-rent could also assist council finances long term.
But it’s all dismissed.
In turn more fits will follow for years to come when the short term sugar rush receipt is gone which will cause Labour’s vote to be hit yet further – and some in the party wonder why they’re doing so badly. They’ll blame the last government of course but fail to own financially idiotic decisions such as these that do little long term. I mean, how many examples do they need?
It’s been seen decade after decade with selling off public land for a short term buck and that’s why housing is now such an utter mess. It crosses all the old parties.
Blaming prior governments only goes so far when again copying the same processes of selling off public land and building insufficient public housing.
A Cabinet meeting next week looks set to rubber stamp council officers’ plans.
Greenwich Labour lost my vote with Shooters Hill antics recently and this just confirms it. Rotten party. No doubt the land buyer will reap the rewards again (Berkeley Homes like the car park?).
More old Blue Labour nonsense. Why vote for them when always selling public land off. Cannot blame Westminster now can they? Shameful behaviour.
Local Government is unwilling (given the direction from Whitehall: unable) to develop these sites because they are not allowed to take the costs onto their balance sheets. Until people accept that we have lived beyond our means for decades, government (local and national) must either cut services or increase taxes, and all so-called social housing will remain underinvested, with such sites being sold to housing associations or private developers.
Yep Westminster won’t let councils fund anywhere close to levels of needed housing but are happy to place legal obligation on councils to house people. With no social/council homes available it inevitably results in ever more reliance on hotels, B&Bs and private landlords charging vast sums on a short term basis with the result being that councils are going broke, services cut and costs to the taxpayer are rising exponentially. London Council’s recently stated that the most recent data showed a 42 per cent annual increase for authorities in London. I keep meaning to cover that. Here’s the link:
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2025/borough-homelessness-costs-soar-ps55-million-day
In terms of living beyond our means, that’s happening now without new social and affordable housing given the taxpayer is paying out ever more as a result. Housing benefit is now well above £30bn each year. Eye watering sums. One of the most reliable sources states now around £33bn a year now and heading to £40bn. £400bn over a decade coming up? Compare that to £39bn in total building of new “affordable” new homes over 10 years.
Temp housing costs in addition are up to £2.8bn each year. Added together and it’s vastly more than spent building new low cost homes.
Borrowing funds to invest in new builds would save over the long term through less funds paying out for housing benefit and temporary housing. Borrowing only makes no sense if no financial return over the mid to long term. If it saves, its sensible economics. Sorry, going on a rant here. But for a government that’s claims it wants to save public funds and seeing Reeves drone on it’s funny how nationally and locally we keep doing what’s been proven a failure.
In the end we have a government now which is wedded to 40 years of the same failure in housing provision which in turn has seen public land sold time and again, costing the taxpayer again and again. The economics of the madhouse – keenly shown once again with this decision by Greenwich.
Still private landlords and private interests benefit from public funds – so all’s well there. And we know Labour is full of landlords from top to bottom, national to local.
Even with right to buy changes this govt signposted it months in advance last autumn. Thus a flood of applications came in and many more homes will be sold off cheaply. Far, far more than will be built in the near term. Again, more cost for the taxpayer but good news for certain private interests.
When cuts are underway in the near term locally I hope people remember decisions like this at the Waterfront.
Of course it would save money in the long term to build more social housing if we could afford to borrow the money to do it but the government believes that we cannot, so we don’t. Perhaps the bond markets believe that borrowing money to buy expensive weapons for overseas adventures is affordable whereas investing in housing is something they perceive as too risky… or simply too unprofitable? But a paragraph of perhaps and wouldn’t it and should have is hollow speculation. The question of why local government doesn’t invest in much social housing is asked and answered: they aren’t allowed to.
After world war 2 the country was in much bigger debt but manage to start the NHS. Build 4.4 million social homes upto 1980.
So that arguement is poppycock
It was never going to be council homes but surely the council could develop using Meridian for mostly private sale or rent. That’d yield massive sums and more than a land sale.
Only reason it doesn’t make sense is if Meridian lack capability but they’ve built reasonably large size plots in Woolwich and Greenwich Builds management could support with development and securing architects, builders etc. GB have built developments in the hundreds of homes and currently are doing so.
Let’s say Greenwich get £20m from a sale. Yet could build-out themselves and generate £30m revenue post-sales and costs including finance costs, and given it’s beside the river it’s a lucrative site, so yep it seems odd. Selling off lets private sector capitalise and gain £10m profit. All hypothetical numbers of course.
Vote Green.
What’s the point in a “Labour” party masquerading as something else but in reality are Tories with a different badge?
The tectonic plates are shifting. Reform have killed the Tories. Labour are killing themselves by being the Tories. Greens or Lib Dems will clean up
I thought the council were getting on top of housing costs?
It appears not given the most recent council report. They made a big thing of no longer using hotels but talking to people within the council, watching and reading interviews and reading reports it appears a tranche of social housing was completed, and people moved from hotels to new homes.
However the total number of homeless households in incredibly expensive temporary housing procured via the private sector remains extremely high at 2,000 according to recent council reports. A vast increase from the recent past. Instead of hotels, many households are in expensive temporary places that aren’t a hotel. Permits a good headline but costs remain on course to cripple the authority and public funds.
Underlying it all things remain dire and then they announce another public land sale like so many in the recent past. Batshit.
Bit harsh arne’t we?
After spending loads of council taxpayers revenue on a new communications director recently to ensure theyre “GETTING THINGS DONE” they may need a few more quid now.
Selling off land to reap some financial rewards will allow the wonderful leadership to get the message out yet further. Think about the potential; maybe a few more TikTok videos or new posters emblazed across the run down parks? Perhaps a video on the big Woolwich screen the homeless beside can view? Might even garner enough for a few more communications directors. After all, one can never be GETTING THINGS DONE enough can they?
You heard me: GETTING THINGS DONE (i.e helping developers off the public back)
Is anyone orchestrating tactical vote plans for the May 2026 election to get this failed administration out? I’d vote for who can beat them (not reform) if we know what can work. The greens recently beat them in Shooters Hill so that area looks a good bet to vote green. I’m not a green but the current admin need an awakening. In Greenwich are the Lib Dems best placed to beat them? With eight months now is a good time to organize and vote tactically to get this sham excuse for “Labour” out in Greenwich or at least get them to wake up. Unless there’s a Labour councillor who is good – and to fair some are but not the leadership – I will vote tactically. It’s been shown recently in Greenwich borough it’s attainable with Shooters Hill.
Interesting to note the adjacent leisure centre car park was “disposed” by Greenwich Council way back around 2008. A full seventeen years later and the developer who took it on still hasn’t completed homes on that very same car park site. Maybe we’ll see some housing on the waterfront site in 2040 at that rate given the same process is being repeated.
Politicians are incentivised to only care about the here & now. £10 today is infinitely better than £100 in a year’s time when not cashing in that £10 will help ensure the opposition are in power.